With respect to program array, I have previously discussed the need for us to continually re-evaluate our programs against a standard of societal need. We should be concerned with creating new programs that will meet the needs of the community and our students and phasing out programs that are no longer needed.

There is a role for both the faculty and the Provost's Office in identifying areas of potential academic program growth. Faculty are specialists in the development of the various disciplines, and they will know best what new avenues of knowledge are developing that ought to be recognized in Temple's curriculum. They will also know best what consolidation of programs is appropriate because of changes in the respective disciplines. Both of these activities can be aided by a rigorous process of academic program review, and I will say a little more about that later.

We should recognize also that academic units are often slow to eliminate programs that are no longer needed. Sometimes this is simply inattention to changing patterns of enrollment and the matrix of knowledge in the field. Sometimes we cling to programs because of nostalgia: they were important to us at an earlier time and, like most of the rest of the species, we are reluctant to let go of the past. Sometimes programs remain because of instincts of territoriality that operate in all human groups.

Whatever the reasons, we can be helped to focus our attention on the phasing out of academic programs by relatively straightforward devices. One is regular review of the number of degrees awarded by such programs. I have recently looked at the array of approximately 330 degree programs offered by the University. If I understand these numbers correctly, about 50 of those degrees have not been awarded to any student in the past five years. It should be a simple matter, I believe, for the Provost's Office regularly to refer such degree programs to the respective schools and colleges with a request that they be reconsidered and, if they are going to be retained, that they be fully justified in light of the absence of degree productivity.

A second approach to degree array is not as straightforward. Here degree discontinuance is closely linked to continual renewal of academic programs that should remain in the curriculum. For both purposes—to discontinue some programs and to renew most others—Temple ought to initiate a regular, rigorous process of academic program review for all of its programs. As I understand it, Temple has not recently engaged in a comprehensive program review; and its most recent full review of graduate programs occurred in the early 1990s. Several people have told me that there was only minimal follow up to the reviews that occurred at that time.

Most American universities do have regular program review. Some review principally graduate programs or graduate and professional programs. Some review all programs. Considering the large size of Temple's undergraduate student body and Temple's longstanding commitment to excellence in undergraduate education, it would appear that any program review process at Temple should include all professional, graduate, and undergraduate programs.

The Provost's Office should take the lead to steadily assure the quality of academic programs. We should look at outstanding program review processes elsewhere. Some characteristics that are common in program evaluations are reviews of institutional data about programs; self studies by academic units about their mission, performance, productivity, and needs; and review by one or two outside specialists chosen by the Provost or the Graduate Dean to evaluate program quality. Other valuable elements of program review include conducting surveys of alumni about program quality, obtaining information from employers about the training and effectiveness of program alumni, evaluating performance of graduates on licensure or national board exams, and examining student performance on the Graduate Record Exam or other graduate and professional school admissions exams. A difficult challenge is to find measures of academic performance and assessment for those programs that do not have licensure exams or other external performance measures. Yet assessment of programs is occurring nationwide and is increasingly prescribed for institutional reaccreditation. It will fall to the faculty and administration working together to develop an array of acceptable assessment methods that might be employed by academic units.

Program reviews should also involve clear follow up: First, self studies and outside reviewers should be asked to recommend improvements that can be made within existing budgets. Second, they should be asked to identify additional resources needed in priority order and the expected measurable improvements that will occur with additional resources. Third, the Provost should review the final report with the department chair and the dean, and a plan of action should be agreed upon including clear timelines for improvement. Finally, budget allocations should be tied to performance improvements recommended through the review process. This is a rigorous and time-consuming process. It should be considered a process of long-range planning at the department and college level. Such reviews should occur only at five-to-seven-year intervals because the steps toward improvement recommended through program review may take several years to implement and additional years to evaluate.

Quite apart from the review of individual academic programs is the large question of the University's Core Curriculum. There appears to be considerable opinion within the faculty that the Core Curriculum should be re-examined, and the Faculty Senate has taken steps to appoint members to a review panel. A newcomer cannot help but be impressed by Temple University's continuing commitment to courses that examine significant texts, that emphasize exegesis and analysis, and that insist upon frequent writing assignments to develop communication skills.

The breadth requirements are also attractive because their stated purpose is to examine broad areas of knowledge rather than academic specialties. Despite this purpose, it does appear that over time many of the courses in core areas have come to be introductory courses or survey courses in specific disciplines rather than courses designed to provide a broad introduction to knowledge, concepts, and epistemology in fields of knowledge. And the number of courses that satisfy requirements in some of the core areas appears to have become quite large. All of these tendencies are common in core and general education programs as they age. Renewal and revision of these programs, therefore, is essential.

It rests principally on the faculty to make recommendations to revise the Core Curriculum, but I strongly recommend that students who have participated in the Core Curriculum—perhaps seniors approaching graduation—be full participants on the committees that review the Core. More than the rest of us, they may have a clear impression whether the Core has strengthened their skills in analysis and expression and has given them a rounded view of the major sectors of knowledge as they are known today.

A further issue of undergraduate education that has faced many universities in recent years is whether and how to have systematic evaluations of student learning. Some institutions now require students to demonstrate proficiency in college-level writing and mathematics in order to continue beyond the sophomore year. Others have instituted evaluations of learning in the major field, through comprehensive examinations, portfolios, capstone courses, or other methods. These approaches help to set benchmarks for students and expectations for curriculum. They compel faculty to work together to formulate curricula that have clearly defined goals, inner coherence, and methods for evaluating whether students have developed the intellectual skills and the knowledge expected in the field. Systematic evaluation of student learning is difficult to formulate and administer, and it can be threatening to both faculty and students. But the tendency in recent decades for the coherence of curricula to give way also cannot be denied or defended. The systematic evaluation of student learning is therefore a discussion upon which Temple ought to embark seriously.

A final issue of undergraduate academic programs should also be faced squarely: the increasing tendency for major programs, including their required prerequisite and related courses in other fields, to consume virtually all of a student's academic endeavors. The explosion of knowledge drives us to create more courses and to require students to take more work in their respective fields. In doing so, we gradually drive out the student's opportunity to pursue other interests—to become a more informed citizen by studying matters related to our polity, to grow personally through literature and the arts, to develop expertise in a second field, and so forth. Related, of course, is that the growth in credit hour requirements in the major increasingly makes the baccalaureate degree a four-and-a-half or five-year endeavor.

In the course of program review we should insist that, in addition to the Core Curriculum and the major requirements, there remains a reasonable margin for students to explore other interests and that all of this should fit within a four-year graduation program of about 124 credits. If we are going to have longer programs for the baccalaureate—and we should have relatively few of them—then as a matter of integrity in our relations with students, we should provide ample and explicit warning before they enroll. Notations of longer-than-normal baccalaureate programs should perhaps be included prominently in admissions materials, catalogues, and all department and college publications. In the end, we should recognize that we do not fashion a better society by prescribing a narrow education, no matter how specialized or intensive it may be.

Finally, any review of Temple's academic programs must recognize the University's international presence. Temple has campuses in Rome and Tokyo and periodically offers programs in many other countries. There is no doubt that these programs enrich educational opportunities for Temple's students and raise the University's visibility across the nation and the world. More than half the students in the program at Rome are from other American institutions and the vast majority of students in Tokyo are Japanese. This necessarily raises the question of whether the Commonwealth appropriation or the tuition derived from Temple's Pennsylvania students should be used to subsidize these programs. Fortunately, for most of their history these programs have been self-supporting. The long recession in Japan has, however, created serious financial problems for Temple University Japan (TUJ). The governing board of TUJ, which operates as a separate entity, has adopted financial projections offered by the program's leadership to liquidate TUJ's debt to the University and put TUJ on a sound financial basis. The program's leadership seems confident that it can carry out this financial plan. The program in Rome has been achieving favorable financial results in recent years; but this is due in significant measure to the enrollment of many students from other American colleges and universities and to the favorable relationship of the dollar to the euro. It would be prudent for the University to develop a policy that would allow the program in Rome to develop reserves to assure its continuity if the conditions supporting its present financial health deteriorate.