Williams College
Self-Study for Accreditation
Faculty
The attraction of a talented faculty dedicated to teaching, scholarly and creative work, and active involvement in College governance and community life is essential for the furtherance of our mission. The goal of creating an inclusive community, moreover, depends crucially on the recruitment of a diverse faculty. The development of an excellent and diverse faculty, however, does not end with recruitment. We must also provide faculty members with adequate resources to enable them to continue to develop as teachers and scholars and to explore new areas of interest. For this reason, over the past ten years we have not only substantially expanded the size of the faculty, in the process also increasing its diversity, but also significantly enhanced support for faculty teaching, scholarship, and creative work.
Recruitment, Composition, and Retention
Note: The most recent years for which certain numerical data are given here is 2006-07. Corresponding data for 2007-08 are in the Team Room. In increasing the size of the faculty, we followed our normal procedures while intensifying our efforts to recruit women and people of color. Normally, individual departments and programs identify particular curricular needs and areas of possible expansion through a process of internal review and discussion. They then submit requests for staffing to the Committee on Appointments and Promotions (composed of the President, Dean of the Faculty, Provost, and three full professors elected by the faculty as a whole), although occasionally the initiative for new positions comes from the CAP itself. After discussing these requests and desirable directions of curricular development with the Committee on Educational Policy, the CAP decides which positions to authorize. Individual departments and programs then conduct national searches to fill the positions, advertising them in all appropriate media, often holding preliminary interviews at annual meetings of professional associations, and inviting three or four finalists for campus visits. Campus visits generally include meetings with students and with members of the hiring department or program as well as with members of other relevant departments or programs, a public lecture or presentation, an interview with the Dean of the Faculty and two members of the CAP or the Faculty Interview Panel, and meetings with library and other technical or administrative staff, as appropriate. In the case of women and people of color, the Vice President for Strategic Planning and Institutional Diversity offers to arrange an informal informational meeting with several members of the faculty. This process has enabled us consistently to recruit faculty of very high quality. By combining departmental and program initiatives with central oversight, it also has allowed us to develop the curriculum (and over the past few years, to expand the faculty) in a manner that reflects overall institutional priorities while responding to developments within particular disciplines and the academy in general.
Indeed, the size of the faculty has grown considerably over the decade since the last accreditation review, both in absolute numbers and relative to the size of the student body. Compared to the 174.4 full-time equivalent (FTE) faculty reported in the 1996-97 Self Study, the number for 2006-07 stands at 231 (excluding regular faculty on leave, members of the Athletics Department, and part-time and visiting faculty). Counted differently, between 1996-97 and 2006-07 the full voting membership of the faculty, which excludes only those with visiting appointments and some adjunct faculty, rose from 223 to 286 (or from 246 to 316 if we include members of the Athletics Department). Between 1996-97 and 2006-07, moreover, the number of tenured and tenure-eligible faculty increased by 54, from 209 to 263 (both numbers include faculty members serving temporarily as full or part-time administrators, of which there were seven in 2006-07). This growth in the size of the faculty, while total student enrollment has remained relatively constant, has reduced the student-faculty ratio from 11:1 in 1996-97 to 7:1 in 2006-07, thereby allowing faculty to work more closely with students both individually and in small classes.
Much of the growth has occurred over the past five years, as part of the implementation of major curricular innovations adopted by the faculty in May 2001. Those innovations, particularly the expansion of the tutorial program, the adoption of writing intensive and quantitative or formal reasoning requirements, and the encouragement of experiential teaching and learning, have required more small-enrollment classes and greater faculty time devoted to the average student. To allow the latter, we also reduced the standard faculty teaching load by one course every two years (it is now two courses each semester and one Winter Study Period course every two years).
While the main impetus for increasing the size of the faculty derived from curricular reform and the need to offset the reduction in the faculty teaching load, the College also used this expansion to pursue other important objectives. In particular, it strengthened or introduced several interdisciplinary programs, most notably Africana Studies, American Studies, U.S. Latino/a Studies, and International Studies, that both add significantly to the breadth and richness of the curriculum and provide opportunities to increase the diversity of the faculty.
Over the past ten years the faculty has indeed grown more diverse, although at a slower rate than the College desires. For example, the following table shows that the number and percentage of women among the tenured and tenure-eligible faculty have continued to increase steadily:
| 1977-78 | 1987-88 | 1996-97 | 2006-07 |
| 21 (12.8%) | 44 (23%) | 72 (34%) | 101 (38%) |
Women now constitute 35 per cent of tenured faculty, in comparison with 25 per cent in 1996-97, and their distribution across ranks also has improved steadily:
| 1987-88 | 1996-97 | 2006-07 | |
| Professors | 3 | 17 | 39 |
| Associates | 12 | 16 | 22 |
| Assistants | 29 | 39 | 40 |
In 2007-08, four additional women join the faculty as assistant professors, three women move into the tenured ranks as associate professors, and seven women become full professors.
Mirroring the growth in the number and percentage of women in the faculty in general and among senior faculty in particular, women also have come to play a greater role in our leadership and governance. We stress this development because the accreditation review Visiting Team in 1997 voiced criticism on this score. Among the three Senior Staff positions filled regularly by faculty members (Dean of the Faculty, Provost, and Dean of the College), for example, both the current and the past Dean of the College are women, and until she left last year to become President of Vassar, a woman was the Provost. In addition, a woman has been appointed to the new position of Associate Dean for Institutional Diversity. Two of the three elected members of the Committee on Appointments and Promotions are women, and women in 2006-07 chaired or co-chaired several major faculty or faculty-student-staff committees, including the Faculty Steering Committee, the Committee on Priorities and Resources, the Committee on Diversity and Community, and the Childcare Committee. In 2006-07, women served as chairs of 12 of 23 academic departments and nine of 20 interdisciplinary programs; as co-director of the Williams Exeter Programme at Oxford; as directors of the Center for Foreign Languages, Literatures, and Cultures, the Center for Environmental Studies, and the Summer Humanities Program; and as College Marshal. The faculty also regularly elects women to all the elected committees that play a central role in the governance of the College. In 2006-07, for example, these major committees had significant numbers of women: Faculty Steering Committee (four of six members), Committee on Educational Policy (two of six), Faculty Compensation Committee (three of six), and Faculty Review Panel (seven of twelve).
The number and percentage of people of color among the tenured and tenure-eligible faculty likewise have grown steadily, although much more modestly than in the case of women:
| 1977-78 | 1987-88 | 1996-97 | 2006-07 |
| 8 (5%) | 18 (10%) | 30 (14%) | 49 (19%) |
As faculty of color have moved up through the ranks, their presence among the tenured faculty also has increased somewhat, from 12 per cent in 1996-97 to 15 per cent in 2006-07. In the latter year, the distribution of faculty of color among the ranks of the tenured and tenure-eligible faculty was as follows:
| Professor | Associate Professor | Assistant Professor | |
| African American | 5 | 2 | 4 |
| Asian American | 9 | 3 | 12 |
| Hispanic | 4 | 3 | 7 |
In 2007-08, one new person of color joins the faculty as an assistant professor, one current faculty member of color becomes tenured, and another becomes a full professor. If in general our efforts to attract and retain faculty of color have produced modest progress, however, the results have been more limited with respect to African American faculty, whose numbers among the tenured and tenure-eligible faculty only increased from seven to eleven (seven of whom are tenured) between 1996-97 and 2006-07.
The mixed results of our efforts to recruit faculty of color also are demonstrated by the findings of a detailed analysis of faculty recruitment, retention, and satisfaction undertaken by the Dean of the Faculty in 2004-05 (see Diversity Initiatives Self Study, pp. 50-67, in Team Room). On the one hand, we are on pace in hiring with respect to the national availability of new Ph.D.s of color. Between 1999 and 2003, 18 per cent of those awarded Ph.D.s nationally in fields taught at Williams were non-Whites, and we appointed people of color in 20 per cent of our searches. On the other hand, we are somewhat behind pace in appointing people of color in the sciences; since 2002-03 only 11 per cent of new appointments in the natural sciences and mathematics have gone to people of color. It also appears that while faculty of color are a slightly higher percentage of the Williams faculty than the average among our liberal arts college peers, the rate of growth for faculty of color here over the past decade is slightly slower than average.
As part of the Diversity Initiatives process, we commissioned two groups of external consultants to visit campus, conduct interviews, and assess the diversity climate at Williams in general. The first group consisted of two scholars from peer institutions, one of whom addressed student affairs and the other matters related to faculty. Their June 2005 report (in Team Room) contains a number of thoughtful recommendations. For example, they suggested that we assess our Bolin Dissertation Fellowship program so as to enhance and use it more effectively as a tool for science and social science departments to recruit underrepresented groups. The faculty-student-staff Committee on Diversity and Community carried out that assessment in 2006-07 and has drafted a proposal for enhancements to the program that will soon be considered by the CAP and Senior Staff. Most significantly, the Committee proposed increasing the term of Bolin Fellowships from one to two years, modifying the selection process, and adding a postdoctoral fellowship in the natural sciences. The second group of consultants was from a professional firm (Cambridge Hill Partners) that carried out a lengthy faculty/staff satisfaction survey in 2005-06. Their final report (in Team Room) did not reveal any new problems or dissatisfactions, but did reinforce our understanding of the special challenges faced by some faculty from historically underrepresented groups.
Increasing the diversity of the faculty will remain a high priority. For many years an administrator in the position of Assistant to the President for Affirmative Action and Government Relations worked with departments and programs to find ways to increase the diversity of applicant pools and also to help with the recruitment of women and people of color during on-campus interviews. The creation in 2006-07 of a new position of Vice President for Strategic Planning and Institutional Diversity and the appointment of a faculty member as part-time Associate Dean for Institutional Diversity beginning in 2007-08 signal an intensification of our recruitment efforts (the position of Assistant to the President was eliminated on the holder’s retirement, and the holders of the two new positions are taking up and enhancing her duties as far as faculty diversity is concerned). As part of their effort on a variety of diversity objectives, the new Vice President and Associate Dean will work closely with the Dean of the Faculty and with department and program chairs to strengthen efforts to recruit and retain a diverse faculty.
Curricular change has also afforded opportunities to increase faculty diversity. The recent creation of a U.S. Latino/a Studies program and the strengthening of both the Africana and the American Studies programs in particular resulted in several new appointments of faculty of color. The appointment over the past ten years of several two-year Mellon postdoctoral fellows with primary interests in such areas as African American, Asian American, African, and Middle Eastern studies similarly has helped, albeit temporarily, to increase the number of people of color among the faculty while simultaneously broadening the curriculum. A recent matching grant from the Mellon Foundation will enable us to make this postdoctoral program permanent (although not every fellow will be a person of color). We also will continue, as on several occasions in the recent past, to make new appointments of faculty of color outside the regular staffing request, approval, and search process when appropriate opportunities arise.
From a longer-term perspective, we intend to continue efforts to encourage our own students of color to pursue careers in academia. For example, even before they begin their first year at Williams, entering students of color are among those who receive bridge support from the Summer Science and the Summer Humanities and Social Sciences Programs, and also follow-up mentoring in subsequent years. Similarly, the Mellon Mays Undergraduate Fellowship Program connects students of color with faculty mentors on academic projects, as does the Williams College Undergraduate Research Fellowship Program. In each of these programs, five students are selected in the spring of their sophomore year and remain in the program until graduation; over the past five years, a total of sixty students have participated in the two programs. Each year we also appoint three or four advanced graduate students from underrepresented groups as Bolin Dissertation Fellows. They spend a year in residence to complete their dissertations and to gain teaching experience in a liberal arts college under the guidance of faculty mentors (fellows teach one course of their choice during the year). Greater coordination and integration of these programs to improve their effectiveness in promoting graduate study among students of color and in attracting faculty of color has become one of the principal objectives of the Vice President for Strategic Planning and Institutional Diversity. These efforts notwithstanding, however, the recruitment of faculty of color will remain a challenge as well as a high priority, given the small number of people of color receiving Ph.D.s in many of the fields taught here and the small number of faculty of color already here.
Retention of faculty members of color is also a concern, as the diversity self study of 2004-05 revealed that they choose to leave Williams for jobs elsewhere somewhat more often than do non-minorities. The difference is difficult to explain, as departing faculty of color largely cite the same reasons for leaving as do others who leave: lack of employment opportunities for a spouse/partner, the intensity of the teaching work load, the geographic isolation of Williamstown, and the dearth of social opportunities for young, unmarried people. They cite diversity issues only occasionally as a factor in the decision to leave.
In recent years, we have taken several measures to support our efforts to recruit and retain a high-quality faculty in general. To address geographic isolation and spouse/partner employment challenges, we created the position of Spouse/Partner Employment Counselor the holder of which helps spouses and partners identify employment possibilities in the region. Williams is a member of the Academic Career Network, a consortium of colleges and universities in the region that maintains a job bank for dual-career academic couples. We also have a program of grants to spouses and partners of faculty and staff to enable them to develop new skills that will increase their ability to find suitable employment locally. In addition, the Board has established a committee composed of several trustees and representatives of Senior Staff to work, among other things, with members of the community on issues of regional economic development. One goal of that effort is to expand employment opportunities for spouses and partners. To meet childcare needs more adequately, we are constructing a new building for our Children’s Center, to open in the Fall of 2007. On the recommendation of a special ad hoc Children’s Center Committee, we also have undertaken a thorough review of the program offered by the center, and the group charged with the review is expected to issue its report and recommendations within the coming year. Finally, to help support an attractive local environment, over the past several years the College has provided financial and other forms of assistance to strengthen local schools and health services.
Viewing the composition of the faculty from a different perspective, the substantial expansion of its size over the past ten years has significantly alleviated the concerns regarding the age distribution expressed in the last self study. To be sure, the percentage of assistant professors in the faculty has continued to decline as we have granted tenure to candidates at a higher rate than prior to the 1990s, with the result that the ratio of tenured to tenure-eligible faculty now stands at 66:34 (compared to 64:36 in 1996-97, 57:43 in 1987-88, and 50:50 in 1977-78). The large cohort, now in its fifties, that concerned us ten years ago also remains. But with the expansion of the faculty, the relative weight of that cohort in the faculty as a whole has diminished considerably and the age distribution is more balanced, as the following table demonstrates:
| <30 | 30-39 | 40-49 | 50-59 | 60-69 | >69 |
| 0 | 71 (27%) | 77 (30%) | 69 (27%) | 31 (12%) | 7 (3%) |
One effect of the extensive hiring of new faculty in recent years has been to reinvigorate individual departments and the faculty as a whole through the introduction of fresh ideas and new areas of scholarly interest and teaching. The active engagement of the faculty in the process of curricular reform and the resulting curricular innovations and creation of new academic programs produced similar effects, thereby helping to ensure that faculty remain intellectually lively, pedagogically adept, and current with developments in their fields.
Nonetheless, the presence of a large cohort of faculty who already have spent over two decades here and could remain for another 10-15 years poses the challenge of maintaining the intellectual and pedagogical vitality of this group. To meet the challenge, we have undertaken a number of initiatives (described below) to support faculty research and course development. In addition, through support for colloquia, seminars, and reading groups at the Oakley Center for the Humanities and Social Sciences, the weekly Science Lunches, and similar forums, we have sought to foster intellectual exchange both among faculty and with visiting colleagues. After extensively examining the concerns of senior faculty with the assistance of a grant from the Mellon Foundation, in 2003-04 we also introduced several programs to address the particular needs of this group. A special paid-leave program funded by the Mellon Foundation enabled 12 senior faculty between 2003 and 2006 to devote a semester to the development of new interests and methodological skills or the refinement and augmentation of existing ones. For example, a historian attended Harvard Divinity School to acquire training in religious studies, a computer scientist studied linguistics and the semantics of natural languages at the University of California at Santa Cruz to help him tie together his interests in computer programming languages and natural languages, a biologist acquired the training and background necessary for a new area of research in the molecular aspects of microevolution, and a studio artist worked with a master papermaker to acquire skills needed to develop a new approach to her creative work. The Mellon grant also enabled senior faculty to invite colleagues from elsewhere to spend an extended period of time at Williams engaging in collaborative work. The faculty who participated in these programs uniformly reported that the experience had a very positive impact on their teaching as well as on their scholarly and creative work. We are pleased that a recent Mellon grant will enable us to continue support for senior faculty development, albeit in more modest form.
Although still 10 to 15 years distant, the retirement of the large cohort of faculty currently in their fifties and sixties poses another challenge. It will consist partly in planning for the replacement of such a large number of faculty over a relatively short period, but also in defining the relationship between these retirees and the College. Many will remain in the area and wish to retain some connection to Williams, and the College in turn will need to determine what benefits it can gain from their presence as well as what services it should make available to them. At present, local resident emeritus faculty retain library privileges and access to limited support services, but except in exceptional circumstances they do not have offices of their own even if they are carrying on active research and professional service; rather they collectively share a few offices scattered in different buildings. The Dean of the Faculty and the Vice President for Alumni Relations and Development, however, have begun to discuss with retired faculty living locally and current faculty nearing retirement the possibility of establishing a center for emeritus faculty that would provide offices, other facilities and services, social spaces, and opportunities for programming, such as shared research seminars, colloquia, and so on. These discussions also will explore other ways in which the College might maintain beneficial connections with retired faculty.
Efforts to Assess and Improve Teaching
Given the centrality of teaching to our mission, we devote considerable effort to the evaluation and improvement of faculty teaching. The evaluation of teaching in fact provides an important means for the enhancement of teaching effectiveness. We therefore have established systematic processes for regularly assessing the quality of teaching. We shall describe first the processes for assistant professors, then for other ranks.
The teaching performance of assistant professors is evaluated annually by senior faculty in the relevant department or program, or both, and also by the Committee on Appointments and Promotions (CAP). The department or program’s evaluation is included in an annual report, which also covers the faculty member’s scholarly and service activities. In preparing these annual reports on assistant professors, all departments and programs must summarize and interpret the data produced by the Student Course Survey (SCS), a questionnaire completed by students at the end of each course; all faculty are required to administer the SCS in every course. After several years of examination by the Faculty Steering Committee and two ad hoc faculty committees, in 2006-07 the faculty adopted a revised version of the survey and the Director of Institutional Research improved substantially the presentation of data derived from it. In addition to the SCS, departments and programs must use at least two other sources of information on teaching, and the most common are interviews of students in courses the faculty member has taught, exit interviews of senior majors, and class visits. Course syllabi and other related teaching materials are also relevant.
The CAP reviews all annual reports from departments and programs, and, when appropriate, asks them for clarification or revision. Once the CAP approves a report, its substance (usually the report itself) must be conveyed to the assistant professor by the department or program chair both orally and in writing. This feedback to untenured faculty is intended to provide them with regular and timely information that can help them become more effective teachers and convey a clear understanding of what they must do to meet the standards for reappointment and promotion. In years when an assistant professor is being considered either for reappointment to a second term or for promotion with tenure, the evaluation process is more extensive and in particular includes a more intensive assessment of a candidate’s scholarly or creative work.
Wishing to enhance the clarity of the process by which assistant professors are evaluated and also the information they receive, during the past two years the Faculty Steering Committee engaged in discussions with the CAP on how to achieve those objectives. As a result of the discussions, in 2006-07 the Dean of the Faculty’s Office prepared an informal guide to evaluation and promotion procedures for untenured faculty and distributed it to all assistant professors; in the future it will give the guide to every new untenured faculty member. In addition, every year the Dean of the Faculty will meet with all first-year assistant professors as a group to discuss with them the College’s evaluation and promotion procedures. The Dean of the Faculty also will continue to monitor the mandated annual communications on performance from department and program chairs to untenured faculty members to ensure they convey accurately the substance of departmental and program reports. Of course, the Dean of the Faculty and members of the CAP always stand ready to meet with faculty members individually about these matters, and the same is true of the Kenan Professor (described below). We believe these improved procedures effectively address the concerns regarding communication with untenured faculty raised by the accreditation review Visiting Team in 1997.
In the event the CAP does not recommend a faculty member for reappointment or promotion with tenure, an appeal process conforming with the guidelines in the AAUP “Statement on Procedural Standards in the Renewal or Non-renewal of Faculty Appointments” is available to the faculty member concerned (see section II.-D of the Faculty Handbook). This appeal process, which includes review by a committee of faculty drawn from a panel of peers elected by the faculty as a whole, is designed to protect academic freedom and tenure as well as to ensure fairness, equity, and the observance of academic due process in all promotion decisions.
Evaluation of the teaching performance of associate professors takes two forms. One form extends to all faculty and is described below. In addition, in their fourth year in rank, all associate professors submit to their department or program and to the CAP a self-evaluative statement discussing their teaching, scholarship, and service to the College, the relevant department or program, and the profession more broadly. The full professors in the department or program and the CAP review the statement, together with the SCS results since tenure was granted. The Dean of the Faculty and the elected CAP member representing the associate professor’s division then meet with the full professors of the department or program to discuss the performance of the faculty member being reviewed. After reporting on the discussion to the full CAP, the Dean of the Faculty meets with the associate professor to discuss her or his performance. This process provides an opportunity for the Dean of the Faculty to convey to an associate professor an evaluation of performance since receiving tenure and also for the associate professor to reflect on his or her performance, accomplishments, and plans for the future. In an associate professor’s fifth year in rank, the full professors of the department or program undertake a formal review of teaching, scholarship, and service and submit to the CAP a written evaluation and recommendation on the timing of promotion to the rank of full professor. The full professors then submit supplemental reports annually until the associate professor is promoted, typically between the sixth and eighth year in rank.
Though conducted annually, the evaluation of the teaching of full professors is less extensive and takes place as part of a process involving the faculty as a whole. Each year all faculty are asked to submit an annual report of activities, including teaching, and faculty who wish to be considered for a merit pay increase must do so. The Dean of the Faculty and Associate Dean of the Faculty review that report and include a synopsis of it on a form summarizing teaching performance and College and department and program service that is prepared annually for each faculty member. The annual reports and summary forms provide the basis for a meeting of the President, Dean of the Faculty, Provost, and each department or program chair that includes a discussion of the performance of each faculty member in the department or program. Based on the information provided by these discussions, the annual reports from faculty members, and the summary SCS data on teaching, the Dean of the Faculty, in consultation with the President and the Provost, determines which members of the faculty will receive a merit pay increase. The reasons for a merit pay award are explained to a faculty member receiving one in his or her annual salary letter. This process enables the Dean of the Faculty to monitor the teaching performance of full professors, to reward effective teaching appropriately, and to identify concerns regarding teaching that may need to be addressed. In rare instances, there may actually be a demerit salary reduction.
At the same time, we continue the Program for Effective Teaching (PET), which began in the Fall of 1994 and provides faculty in their first three years at Williams with opportunities to develop their skills as teachers. Directed by a senior member of the faculty, designated the Kenan Professor and chosen for exceptional abilities as a teacher, the program consists of a teaching “conference” at the beginning of each year, followed by weekly meetings at which assistant professors discuss questions relating to teaching in general and at Williams in particular, both among themselves and with other members of the faculty. The Kenan Professor also organizes occasional lunch meetings or presentations on pedagogical issues to which all faculty members are invited. For example in 2006-07 there were two such lunches on topics of special concern in our self study, namely creativity in student learning and assessment of student learning. The program has provided an effective means for helping new faculty members develop their abilities as teachers.
To provide a comparable opportunity for senior faculty, in 2007-08 we will add on a trial basis a new version of PET intended to enable them to share experiences and discuss pedagogical issues with colleagues outside their department or program. Voluntarily composed groups of four faculty members from different disciplines will observe classes taught by each other and meet several times during the semester to discuss their teaching objectives, strategies, methods, and so on. At the end of the semester, each group will submit a report to the Dean of the Faculty, discussing and assessing the impact of their participation in the program. These reports will enable the Dean of the Faculty and the Committee on Educational Policy to assess the effectiveness of the new program.
In addition to the two versions of PET, the College underwrites and offers to organize for departments and programs workshops and retreats devoted to pedagogical issues, particularly the teaching of writing. In 2005-2006, for example, the History and the Economics Departments each held one-day workshops on writing and course design led by an external consultant. This past year, the Theatre Department and the Africana and the American Studies programs each held one- or two-day retreats to review their programs and discuss pedagogical matters.
Efforts such as these, to assess and improve teaching, are part of the institutional culture at Williams and are therefore carried out in the normal course of events. Faculty in departments and programs meet regularly to review student learning goals and to discuss instructional effectiveness. There is no College-wide assessment protocol, but each discipline has developed its own ways of knowing and reviewing its progress. The History Department, for example, assembled a chart in 2005-06 that outlines teaching goals and pedagogic methods for every level of the history curriculum (100-level, 200-level, etc). Armed with that set of guidelines, the department faculty engage in a periodic review of every course offered, to determine how well they are doing. The Computer Science Department, in addition to other systems for assessing instructional effectiveness, has also for the past 20 years tracked student performance on a particular micro-code design project for sophomores. The students enrolled in a particular course (CS 237: Computer Organization), which is required for the major, know they are in competition with previous students and always rise to the challenge. A number of quantitative measures indicate that program accuracy, speed, and efficiency have increased every year. This result can be interpreted in a number of ways, but it reflects at least partially on the continued improvement of the introductory CS sequence. Other assessment tools employed recently by other departments and programs include standardized tests (Asian languages), transcript analysis (English), benchmarking (Jewish Studies), longitudinal studies of student performance (Biology), senior exit surveys (Psychology and others), peer assessment (Biochemistry), and juried presentations of student projects (Environmental Studies, Mathematics and Statistics, Political Economy, Theatre, and many others).
As part of our self study the Coordinator and the Associate Dean of Faculty collected up-to-date evidence on this ongoing culture, in a series of interviews of more than 20 department and program chairs. We discussed some of that evidence in the section on assessment of student learning in Chapter 4. Additional evidence that the faculty discussions of teaching at the department and program level are taken seriously lies in the fact that over the past five years approximately 580 new courses have been developed and 23 departments and programs have made significant changes to the structure of their course offerings. Countless small changes have been made as well. Clearly there is a readiness and desire among the faculty to improve instructional effectiveness and to respond to disciplinary and pedagogic trends.
Faculty Development and Scholarship
As a general rule, we recruit faculty from the finest graduate programs and have been able to attract the best students from these programs. Year after year, we have been remarkably successful in landing top choices in most searches, although market conditions in the fields of economics and computer science have prevented us from doing so in some years. Once we have appointed them, however, we must give faculty adequate resources to enable them to be productive scholars and effective teachers. Over the past decade therefore we have increased substantially the resources devoted to faculty development, in addition to the PET programs.
To support research and creative work, we offer a comparatively generous leave policy for both tenured and untenured faculty. Tenured faculty are eligible for one semester of paid leave after three years of teaching or a year of paid leave after six years. For many years the normal leave pay had been three-quarters of salary, but to compensate for the decline in external funding particularly in the arts and humanities, in 1997-98 we amended our sabbatical grant program to allow a tenured faculty member to apply for a supplement to increase sabbatical salary from the three-quarters level to one hundred per cent. Virtually all faculty on sabbatical leave now receive their full salary, thereby enabling them to be on leave longer than the previous three-quarters support permitted. We also have an assistant professor leave program. After reappointment to a second term, and upon submission of a viable research proposal, an assistant professor may receive a paid leave — configured either as one semester at full salary or as one year at three-quarters salary. Of course, many faculty, both senior and junior, are able to obtain additional research support from outside the College, and under appropriate conditions we permit leaves for longer periods to allow them to take advantage of that support. Our policies on longer leaves are spelled out in the Faculty Handbook (Section II-M).
We also provide all faculty every year an allowance for travel to professional meetings and upon request automatically grant a specified amount — $1,250 in 2006-07 — for professional development (the amount was increased in 2001-02). Unspent balances for professional development carry over to succeeding years, enabling one to accumulate funds for especially costly projects. In addition, the Dean of the Faculty administers a number of endowed and unendowed funds that provide substantial support for faculty research and creative work in the arts and for other forms of professional engagement and development. The amount available for faculty support through these funds has increased significantly since the last review in 1997. Both tenured and untenured faculty on leave also may apply to the College’s Oakley Center for the Humanities and Social Sciences for resident fellowships that provide a research stipend of $4,000, offices at the center, and secretarial support. We also offer summer stipends to faculty who develop new types of courses and areas of curricular interest, for example tutorials, team-taught interdisciplinary courses, and courses satisfying the recently adopted Exploring Diversity Initiative (EDI) or furthering the Critical Reasoning and Analytical Skills (CRAAS) initiative. Due partly to these stipends, the number of tutorials and CRAAS courses offered annually has increased significantly and we have established a strong foundation for the implementation of the EDI in 2008-09. In addition, the Coordinator of Experiential Education gives assistance and arranges resources for the development of courses with a significant experiential component.
Several other initiatives serve to support the faculty’s scholarly and creative work and to enhance teaching. In addition to offering residential fellowships, for example, each year the Oakley Center sponsors several faculty discussion and shared-research seminars and organizes 15-20 colloquia led by visiting scholars, and it regularly provides resources for conferences organized by faculty. Over the past five years, grants from the Mellon Foundation have enabled our faculty to co-organize and participate in workshops that bring together faculty from eight participating liberal arts colleges to discuss pedagogical issues and common scholarly interests. The establishment of several distinguished visiting professorships (the Clark Professorship in Art, Scott Professorship in English, Arthur Levitt Artist in Residence, Croghan Professorship in Religion, Sterling A. Brown Professorship in African American Studies, Kaplan Professorship in American Foreign Policy, Class of ’55 Professorship in International Studies, and Boskey and Payne Professorships open to any field) has enabled us each year to introduce a fresh intellectual presence among the faculty while also adding new areas to the curriculum. The permanent endowment of the Mellon Post-Doctoral program and possible expansion of the Bolin Dissertation Fellowship program will have similar effects.
Although we discuss it in more detail in the Library and Other Information Resources section, we note here the extensive technological support for scholarly work and teaching. All faculty members have in their offices desktop or laptop computers, which are upgraded on a three-year cycle, and they have access to a wide range of software and hardware. Technical support is provided by the staffs of both the Office of Information Technology (OIT) and the College Library, who also offer every year a large number of workshops on particular topics. Each summer since 1997 OIT also has run the Williams Instructional Technology (WIT) program, which provides an opportunity for 12-15 faculty members and an equal number of students to work collaboratively with OIT media experts on the development of high quality Web, video, multimedia, and other curriculum-related projects. The Faculty Center for Media Technology (FCMT) similarly provides resources and facilitates technical support for faculty who want to experiment with advanced technology and to integrate emerging technologies into their research and teaching. Over the past five years, 43 faculty from 17 departments have received 54 grants from the FCMT for projects related to course development and scholarly work.
The high volume and quality of works that Williams faculty produce and the numerous fellowships and prizes they win attest to both the quality of the faculty we recruit and retain and the effectiveness of their support. A partial listing of faculty publications available on the Website maintained by the Dean of the Faculty’s Office for 2006 alone contains 26 books (representing nearly ten per cent of the tenured and tenure-eligible faculty), a large number of book chapters and articles in prestigious journals, and several pages of invited papers and presentations. In addition, in the past year nearly every studio artist has had his or her work exhibited or screened, one of the composers in the Music Department had both new and earlier works performed in several venues and released on CD, and at least one artist in residence similarly was featured on a new CD and gave several major national and international performances. Over the past few years Williams faculty have received virtually all of the most prestigious national fellowships in the arts, humanities, and social sciences (NEH, NEA, ACLS, Guggenheim, Getty, Fulbright, Woodrow Wilson Center, Institute for Advanced Study, National Humanities Center) as well as several other major fellowships for research in these areas. Faculty also have been exceptionally successful in competing for major grants in the sciences, for example receiving over the past five years 38 NSF grants, nine NIH and DHHS grants, and four grants from NASA. Faculty also regularly receive recognition from their peers for the high quality of their scholarly and creative work in the form of major awards and prizes. In the past year alone several professional associations awarded Williams faculty prizes for the best book or article in their field, one faculty member was named the Outstanding Young Scientist for 2007 by the European Geoscience Union, another received a prestigious prize for research in an undergraduate institution from the American Physical Society, yet another was among the first artists to be named “United States Artist Fellow,” and still another received several composer awards from ASCAP.
Our faculty also are regularly recognized for exceptional teaching. Over the past few years, for example, five members of the Mathematics Department have received major teaching awards from the Mathematical Association of America. Since 1997-98 two members of the faculty have received the Robert Foster Cherry Award for Great Teachers, and one of them later was named the Outstanding Baccalaureate College Professor of the Year by the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.
Evaluation of Sufficiency of Support for Faculty
As the preceding description makes clear, we already provide substantial support for faculty research and development. Nonetheless, the Dean of the Faculty constantly monitors the sufficiency of this support and works with the Provost and the Vice President for Alumni Relations and Development, who helps carry out policy on targeted fundraising, to ensure its adequacy. With this objective, the Dean of the Faculty also draws on other sources of information to assess changing needs, including regular consultation with relevant standing committees. For example, as described above, a grant from the Mellon Foundation enabled us to examine the situation and concerns of senior faculty in their fifties and older and to shape a series of policies and programs that addressed their particular needs. We are studying data relating to faculty from recent HERI and COFHE surveys for insight into the concerns and needs of the faculty as a whole. Seeking to address a number of concerns that have arisen as a result of the appointment of faculty in interdisciplinary programs, in the spring semester of 2007 the Dean of the Faculty held a series of meetings with the untenured faculty holding positions in such programs, the chairs of those programs, and all department and program chairs. As a result of the meetings, we modified and regularized the evaluation and mentoring arrangements for untenured faculty holding appointments in interdisciplinary programs. We will undertake other measures to address the particular needs of this group and we will form an ad hoc committee comprising several program and department chairs to explore ways to improve the coordination between departments and programs.
In addition, the Provost and the Vice President for Operations continue to work with relevant faculty committees to examine and address non-professional concerns that strongly affect faculty recruitment and retention. As mentioned earlier, after several years of study and discussion by both the Committee on Priorities and Resources and the Childcare Committee, and advised by external consultants, we are in the process of constructing a new childcare facility, due to open in the Fall of 2007, and reassessing the management and program of the Children’s Center. On the recommendation of the Faculty Compensation Committee, in 2003-04 we introduced a program of grants to enable faculty and staff spouses and partners to acquire training that would increase their ability to find employment locally or regionally. Thus far, 34 spouses and partners have taken advantage of the opportunity. We project that further development of these kinds of services and programs will be necessary to ensure that we can continue to attract and retain talented faculty committed to excellent teaching and scholarship.
Finally, while the recent increase in the size of the faculty enabled us to expand and enrich the curriculum and to diversify the faculty, further increases in size are unlikely to be available as a way to achieve these goals in the foreseeable future. We project that over at least the next decade we will face the challenge of continuing to broaden the curriculum and diversify the faculty while being limited to more normal levels of hiring. This will require careful and thoughtful planning by the Dean of the Faculty and the CAP, in consultation with the Committee on Educational Policy and with departments and programs, regarding the definition and allocation of new appointments. We are confident, however, that the combination of our strong institutional commitment, considerable and growing financial resources, governance structure based on widespread faculty participation, faculty intensively engaged with their disciplines both nationally and internationally, and continued efforts described earlier in this chapter will enable us to meet this challenge and in general to continue to recruit and retain a faculty of the highest caliber.
Advising
Given the rich variety of opportunities our curriculum provides, good advising of students is essential. We have systems of advising that serve students from their very first days at Williams through their senior year. The Dean of the College oversees the system that assigns each member of the entering class to an academic advisor who is either a member of the teaching or coaching faculty or an administrator whose responsibilities keep him or her knowledgeable about the curriculum. Each advisor works with between three and five first-year students and stays with them until they select a major in the spring of sophomore year, at which point department and program advisors are available. Two advantages of the system are, first, the small number of students each advisor is responsible for, and, second, having the advisor stay with the group beyond the first year.
Some students have expressed reservations about having coaches and administrators as advisors, questioning the ability of those individuals to advise properly. Administrative advisors are all volunteers and, as mentioned above, have duties that give them solid knowledge of our curriculum and faculty. In fact, for some their administrative duties give them a better sense of the breadth of our offerings than some faculty have. Nevertheless, it is true that we should decline the offer of some administrators to advise. Whether our athletics faculty can serve ably as advisors is a more complicated issue. They are members of the faculty and the Athletics Department strongly embraces the notion that they are teachers — a philosophy the College supports — and we know that many academic faculty praise coaches’ teaching ability. While some athletics faculty are excellent advisors, others are less able, but of course the same can be said of academic faculty. At this point, we have no plans to change who advises students but do plan to assess administrative volunteers more carefully.
To pair first-years with appropriate advisors, we consult the advising questionnaire and other information students provide as part of the admission process. We make every effort to pair individuals with common intellectual interests when possible. Advisors have access to each student’s admission file, advising questionnaire, and introduction letter (if the student wrote one). Each year advisors receive a handbook (copy in Team Room) with detailed information and advice on how to advise. Each year before the start of classes, deans meet with advisors to review the advising process and provide to advisors results of their advisees’ qualifying and placement exams. At this meeting, faculty representing all academic departments and programs are available to answer questions or provide advice about their course offerings and requirements.
Students at our three off-campus programs (Williams-Mystic, Williams-Exeter, and Williams in New York) are well served by the senior Williams faculty who administer and direct them. In addition, as part of the application process to these programs, students receive substantial counseling about each one’s unique character.
Projections: The foregoing discussion has included many projections. Increasing the diversity of the faculty and the curriculum will remain a priority, even though it will be challenging to do so without a significant increase in the size of the faculty. We will need to continue the recent practice of defining and allocating some new appointments in ways that help achieve the goal. The Vice President for Strategic Planning and Institutional Diversity and the Associate Dean for Institutional Diversity will help our efforts in recruitment and retention. We will continue to explore ways to create and maintain beneficial connections with retired faculty.
top