An extensive report on the University's strengths and weaknesses was made available online to the campus communityWednesday. The report — written by a team of 10 faculty members and administrators from peer institutions — will serve as the basis for Brown's re-accreditation from the New England Association of Schools and Colleges.
The report is largely based on the team's visit to the University last April and evaluates Brown on 11 standards covering academics and the administration.
The University chose to have the NEASC team focus on the undergraduate program rather than examine all 11 areas equally, according to Provost David Kertzer '69 P'95 P'98.
Though Brown was scheduled for re-accreditation review in 2008, the University requested and received a one-year deferral to allow the Task Force on Undergraduate Education to complete its internal review of Brown's undergrad experience, he wrote in an e-mail to The Herald.
Since the University completed a separate, mandatory self-study before the NEASC team's visit, the report "merely added a peer perspective on what we already knew," President Ruth Simmons wrote in an e-mail to The Herald.
Several of the report's recommendations and concerns are already being addressed. The NEASC team was particularly concerned with Brown's high tenure rate, and an ad hoc faculty committee has been formed to examine the tenure process and present findings to the faculty in the spring.
The report commended Brown's improvements in tracking student writing progress and standardizing departmental evaluation forms, but asserted that more should be done in both areas. The NEASC team also cited limited student exposure to all disciplines, noting that 6 percent of students take no science or math classes and only 12 percent of students concentrate in the physical sciences.
Since the report was published, the Corporation has added a young alumni trustee position, in line with the report's suggestion that Brown's highest governing body should include more recent graduates. The evaluation also recommended having more graduate school alums on the Corporation, a suggestion that echoed other comments throughout the report that graduate students are less integrated than they should be into the Brown community.
The report is complimentary of Brown's "distinctive, competitive and high-achieving" student body that is "diverse on all dimensions." The evaluation team suggested several improvements in on-campus life, including renovating residence halls and adequately staffing Health Services and Psychological Services to meet student need.
The University libraries, while "more than adequate" for undergraduate needs, has too much of a "historical disciplinary focus" to suit new interdisciplinary research, the report said, also noting that library funds cannot be reallocated in a flexible way.
The report also urged the University to increase funding for building maintenance, noting that the campus has not had a "full comprehensive external facilities audit" in 15 years.
Though the report praises Brown's "enviable momentum" and Corporation leadership — "Far be it for the Committee to comment on an institutional structure that was put in place by the lucid brain of George III!" — it cautions the University to ensure infrastructure and staff support are kept at pace with faculty and research growth.
The NEASC team's suggestions were "very valuable to us," Kertzer wrote. "Each senior member of the administration has been developing a plan to respond to suggestions put forth in the outside report."
The report will be the subject of "broad campus discussion" this semester, Simmons wrote in a response letter to NEASC. The faculty will discuss the report and Brown's tenure processes at a faculty forum on Nov. 17.
Though the NEASC team did not provide "a revelation of any bold new insights," the report has great value to Brown, Simmons wrote to The Herald. "It is important to understand how others see us."
