|
In its task of establishing the academic priorities of the College, CAP members began by attempting to formulate a set of criteria to guide our work of assessing various aspects of our educational offerings at Smith (referred to below as “programs,” in the widest sense, i.e. whether carried out within a department or an interdisciplinary program).
For the past three years CAP has used the following criteria in assessing requests for staffing and funding. Probably no curricular proposal could – or even should – satisfy all of these criteria, but we think each represents an important element for the Committee to consider:
a |
Excellence -- our estimate of the program's (actual or potential) excellence, measured against the best (established or emerging) national standards for similar programs -- we should do what we are capable of doing at a high level of quality; |
 |
|
|
|
b |
College Goals -- our estimate of the program's fit with (or contribution to) the College's goals, including such 2020 goals as enhancement of science and technology at Smith, fostering a more global emphasis, and revitalizing connections across disciplines. Our assessment will be informed by our knowledge of best practices in higher education, especially at liberal arts colleges; |
|
|
|
|
c |
Faculty interest, expertise, enthusiasm, and commitment --we should support programs our faculty are enthusiastic about offering; |
|
|
|
|
d |
Students -- we do our best to support programs our students show that they want through enrollments and other measures; |
|
|
|
|
| e |
Synergy -- does the proposal contribute to more than one academic endeavor? Our resources will always be limited, so collaborations (including the Five College variety) have a special attraction; |
|
|
|
|
| f |
Innovation -- does the proposal promise innovative teaching and materials? Not every program can or should, but we must be sure to incorporate the best of emerging fields and techniques into our curriculum; |
|
|
|
|
| g |
Vision -- do the proposers have a vision for the future? What we are doing now must be based on our assessment of where Smith should be in the coming decades; and |
|
|
|
|
| h |
Costs, in money, space, faculty FTE, and other resources -- other things being equal, if we can achieve our goals in a more economical way that will allow us to stretch limited resources. |
|
|
|
|
| e |
Diversity -- does the proposal address the College’s strong interest in ethnic, racial, cultural, and geographic diversity, either in its curricular content or in its likelihood of attracting an especially diverse pool of candidates? Not every proposal can or should, but if other things are equal, the CAP should give priority to proposals likely to further our common purposes and the College’s goals in this respect. (This statement was approved for addition to the criteria by the Committee on Academic Priorities at its meeting on March 26, 2001.) |
|
|
|
|
| e |
Consortia Considerations -- does the proposal address Five College interests and shared resources? Is there evidence that the proposers have consulted with their Five College colleagues? Does the proposal show efforts to use the consortium connection for both short and longer-term needs? (This statement was approved for addition to the criteria by the Committee on Academic Priorities at its meeting on November 7, 2001.) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
CAP’s Criteria for Academic Priorities
Sample Schedule for Visiting Committee |
|
