header.gif (2271 bytes)

Public Service and Outreach Home Page

Public Service and Outreach Documents

DocumentsMeetingsCommission MembersPresident's Home PageYour Comments

Public Service and Outreach Planning Commission
Distribution Materials for the April 7 Meeting

A.     Extended Agenda

Dear Members of the Public Service and Outreach Commission,

In our first four meetings, we have had discussions on the general issues
of definition, terminology, benchmarking, and UVA's mission, and we have
had discussions led by our special guests, Joe Cronin and Jane Sjogren, and
last week, President Casteen. Now we are moving from this
"orienting/introductory" phase to the phase of identifying the tasks and
organizing the work groups that will span the next five months.

As noted in the workplan which was distributed (let me know if you need a
copy to be re-sent), we are simultaneously collecting information about our
institution as well as other institutions (Laura Hawthorne has met with or
contacted most of you already to gather a portion of this UVA information).
The objective for our April 7 meeting will be for the Commission to come
to a consensus about the directions we choose to study intensely and to
report comprehensively.

Based on the presentations, documents and discussions we have had, please
look at the following list of issues and come ready to discuss any changes, consolidations, or additions you think are needed for this list to reflect our consensus as to what issues have been raised, which are within the scope of the commission, which can be addressed by a working group, and which need some other approach. If you have ideas prior to themeeting that you would like to share electronically, please do so.

1. With the decentralized nature of the University of Virginia, what would
it mean to embrace public service efforts more enthusiastically at an institutional level? What patterns of behavior or administrative structures need to change in order for us to do this? How could we begin to make these changes?

2. What successful structures and models can we find that successfully
promote public service at other institutions (are there pockets of these
here at UVA)? We need to "build an edifice that we can live in," as
Casteen said. A few members could become experts about certain
institutions (like Duke), visit them, and report back to the Commission.

3. How do we incorporate students and staff into our University-wide vision
for public service? What should we say about service learning and similar

4. How do we organize and promote voluntary civic service from members of
the University community? Should we and, if so, where should that reside institutionally?

5. What public relations and communication strategies are being used currently? How well are they working? What else can be done? How can we convey to the Commonwealth's citizens that they can not walk five miles without bumping into UVA services?

6. After examining our inventory of public service efforts and programs, what can we recommend about new directions of public service? Should we stop
doing any that we are currently doing? Should we identify what we can and
can not do?

7. What are new ways we can celebrate and recognize the public service we
already do? What should this University be known for in its public service?

8. Are there obvious areas in which we could pursue partnership ventures with other institutions that we aren’t already pursuing? Are there collaborative ventures that would benefit greatly from more collaboration (or suffering from lack thereof)? What is the condition of our current collaborative ventures? What other Virginia institutions (universities, community colleges, public schools, etc.) should we partner with in addition to those links we
already have?

9. Public service is not a one-way street. What recommendations can we make to increase the perceived value and rewards of these public activities for
our faculty and students? How can we show the relationship to teaching and
research more effectively?

10. Other (add you most passionate issues).

I look forward to seeing you Wednesday, April 7, at 8:30AM in 389 Newcomb

B.                                         Workplans

Public Service and Outreach Planning Commission
March 22, 1999
Rebecca D. Kneedler, Planning Commission Chair

This is an interim update about accomplishments and workplans for the University of Virginia Planning Commission on Public Service and Outreach. The Commission has 20 members that include faculty, staff, and students representing the primary dimensions of health and medicine, business and economic development, government, and education. In addition, a group of ad hoc members have been included to work on various aspects of the commission’s charge. For the most current membership listing of both groups, please see our web site at:


This update is organized around the six elements of the Framework for Information Based Planning as requested. These written notes are brief; I will be happy to elaborate on any of them at our meeting next week or by email.

Definition of Scope.  After reading the three documents available on our web site (Cronin and Sjogren Report, 1991 Faculty Senate Report, and Kneedler Remarks from December 1998), the members of the Commission discussed the scope of our planning including terminology, definitions, values and magnitude. At this stage, we have agreement on using the terminology, "public service" (rejecting the term, "engagement" and qualifying the term, "outreach"). We have reasonable consensus for a working definition to be the following phrased in two ways: (1) The application of University of Virginia-based expertise to issues of concern to the greater community, and (2) Harnessing and directing the intellectual resources of the University of Virginia to promote and enhance the economic, intellectual, social, and physical well being of the Commonwealth of Virginia and beyond.

We will be recognizing and showcasing the significant voluntary public service that our University students and staff contribute. This will not be a primary focus of this commission; however, it will be noted that the University of Virginia is second to none in the percentage of participation in this arena of voluntary service by our students and staff.

Identification of Aspiration Group.  We devoted much of our March 10 meeting to a discussion of benchmarks and aspiration groups. The commission members are already at a remarkably sophisticated level of understanding of these issues led by the work of Joe Cronin, Jane Sjogren, and Ben Boggs, and based on their substantial background in this area. After much discussion (both real and electronic), we appear to be moving toward the identification of eight or so benchmarks. We are not looking for who is the best in the generic area of "public service," but rather who is the best in specific policies and structures relating to metrics such as distance education or state government relations. We anticipate the identification of approximately 4 from our peer group listings including private and public (such as the SCHEV salary peers and AAU peers), 2 land grant universities, and 2 from non-university institutions. Identification of Preliminary Aspiration Group completed May 1, 1999.

Metrics of Aspiration Group.  We are already examining the characteristics of a group of Universities that have emerged from various criteria (Duke, Michigan, Michigan State, Wisconsin, Berkeley, Harvard, Penn State, Vanderbilt, UNC-Chapel Hill). Again, the commission recognizes that these may not be institutions that excel in the broad umbrella of public service as much as they excel in a particular aspect of public service, such as access or communication. Metrics of the Aspiration Group completed September 1, 1999.

Metrics of the University of Virginia.  We are simultaneously collecting the information needed in this element at the same time we are examining elements 2 and 3. Part of this is driven by our commission’s immediate push to know more about the University of Virginia’s current status in public service and part of this is the timely hiring of a coordinator for public service programs in Gene Block’s office, Laura Hawthorne. Laura, in close consultation with this commission, is creating an electronic database of service programs using a variety of techniques including inventories and publications already available throughout the university community. As a result of the restructuring of Gene Block’s office and the expansion of his responsibilities to include public service, a University clearinghouse for the dissemination of this information can now be created. Metrics of the University of Virginia completed September 1, 1999.

Gap and Opportunity Analysis.  The commission members in their expertise groups of education, health and medicine, business and economic development, and government will study the analyses of the aspiration groups and UVA. In addition, they will create focus groups and make site visits in their areas, drawing on additional university people who are active in the specific area. An example of this is a visit to Richmond to meet with legislators and state officials to hear their views on the current role UVA can and should be playing in serving the needs of the Commonwealth. Gap analysis completed February, 2000.

Strategies for Improvement.  Recommendations for concrete steps that can be taken will emerge throughout this process as we work with the following University of Virginia groups – Development, Technology, Alumni, Staff, Faculty, and Students. Three stages of recommendations are projected: (1) Preliminary, June, 1999; (2) Interim, January, 2000; and (3) Final, June, 2000.


Fine and Performing Arts Planning Commission
March 22, 1999
Robert Chapel, Planning Commission Chair

I.  Definition of Scope

The Arts Commission is focusing on the major arts programs currently in place at the University of Virginia -- Art History and Studio Art; the academic areas of Music as well as music performance; Drama; the Bayly Art Museum; and other programs such as those in the School of Architecture, the media arts, and the English Department’s Creative Writing program. The Music and Fine Arts Libraries will also be included in this overall examination of the arts programs as well as the new Media Studies program, the Virginia Film Festival, and the Heritage Repertory Theatre. The central purpose of this study is to evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of the current programs, especially Art, Drama, and Music, to cite benchmark programs to which we wish to aspire, and to determine the resources needed to realize these goals.

At this writing, the Arts Commission has had three meetings – the first centered around a general discussion of some of the major topics the Commission members felt were important to discuss in the ensuing months. These included expanded arts program collaboration and interdisciplinary interaction across Grounds; an examination of how to better involve more UVA students in the arts and to make them more aware as to what is being produced in the arts; examine how we might better promote our programs to the University, the local community, the Commonwealth, and the nation; and, examine the traditional split between theory and performance in all of the arts programs. The second meeting centered around President Casteen’s address to the Commission followed by questions to him from members of the Commission; The third meeting centered around the current ongoing discussion of the specific programs with Music leading off. Art, Studio Art, and Drama will follow – as will the Bayly, Architecture, Media Arts, and Creative Writing. I anticipate that these discussions will take up most of the scheduled meeting times for the rest of the Spring, 1999 semester. The goal by the end of this semester is to clearly identify the strengths of these programs as well as their limitations.

As these discussions progress, certain small task forces are also being formed which will bring additional information to the Commission. At this time a student task force, co-chaired by the two Commission student representatives, is being formed to identify major student issues in regards to the arts; an alumni task force, chaired by Wayne Cozart, will be formed to extract opinions and engender interest from our alumni in regards to past and present UVA arts programs; a task force will be formed to help identify benchmark programs; and finally, another task force will be formed to research how the arts may be more thoroughly integrated with other programs at the University.

In addition, the possibility and cost of a publication such as the University of Michigan School of Music produces twice a year centering on all of its arts programs will be examined. This publication would serve three functions – to bring what we are actually doing here in the arts to the rest of the world, to connect with our alumni, and as a device for fundraising. This publication would be sent to our alumni as well as to arts programs throughout the nation. Bill Sublette, who is on the Commission, will be asked to research the possibility of developing this sort of publication.

The local community of Charlottesville will also become informally involved. Beth Sutton, the Commission’s community representative, and I will be meeting with various members of our community in an effort to get their opinions in regards to the community’s arts needs and the type of programming they would hope to have presented at the University that is not currently offered. We hope to create excitement for the future of the arts at UVA as well as keep them informed as to our future plans which involve the proposed arts center. Beth is coordinating her efforts in concert with Bob Sweeney and Charly Fitzgerald. In addition, the Development Office has hired Peter Kellogg as a consultant whose task it is to locate potential benefactors for the proposed arts center. Much is happening at once. Our hope is that a clear report about our strengths and what makes our programs unique, as well as our limitations, and a clear definition of what else we would want to do, will evolve from these numerous studies. A plan to improve what we are doing will be the final part of this report.

II.  Identification of Aspiration Group

Concurrently, during this time that the various programs’ strengths and limitations are being examined, each program is being asked to cite outside programs or aspects of outside programs which they might use as benchmarks for excellence. It is hoped that a short list of these programs will be created and the heads of these programs be invited to Charlottesville for an October, 1999 retreat with members of the Commission. This retreat will encompass two days and should prove to be highly beneficial in determining what changes we need to make to reach our goals and what resources will need to be found to accomplish these changes. I anticipate having this list of aspiration groups completed by May 1 with invitations for the retreat going out soon after that.

III. Metrics of Aspiration Group

It is most important that each arts program clearly define what it is that it aspires to do and objectively assess if it is indeed accomplishing its goals. If it is not, what characteristics of other successful programs are lacking that are causing the UVA arts program not to reach its fundamental goals? These characteristics, as cited in Polley McClure’s model, might be funding, faculty, or facilities or all of these, together. It also might be an unclear or unrealistic vision of what a program should and can aspire to be. A specific program’s clarity of vision, I feel, is the most important characteristic to examine of all. This "characteristics identification" will be the primary goal for the Arts Commission during the Fall, 1999.

IV. Metrics of the University of Virginia

Once the "characteristics identification" has been completed, a comparison between the benchmark programs’ central characteristics and those in the arts programs at UVA will be made, also during the Fall, 1999.

V. Gap and Opportunity Analysis

It is anticipated that in the Spring, 2000, short trips to outside programs will be taken by various members of the Arts Commission. These visits will be used to help more clearly identify strengths of these "aspiration programs" as well as to look more closely at arts facilities which would be used as examples of eventual facilities to be constructed at the University. The Commission has agreed that not only our benchmark programs should be visited, but also those programs which are considered "the best," such as in Drama’s case – it might be the Yale School of Drama. In Music’s case, from the point of view of Ph.D. programs – it might be Harvard. It should be stated, once again, that none of our programs are necessarily attempting to become "just like" one of the top ranked programs in, for instance, U.S. New and World Report. We all believe we offer certain unique aspects to our students and to the University, and we wish to capitalize on our strengths, decide on what changes or additions need to be made to our programs to make them truly excellent, and clearly define the resources needed to make these changes or additions. Aspiring to equal what U.S. New and World Report ranks as "The Best" will not necessarily be the best for the University of Virginia’s arts programs or for our students. But it is important that we know what those programs considered "the best" include as a frame of reference, if nothing more.

VI.  Strategies for Improvement

It is anticipated that a national conference will be held in the Fall, 2000.

The exact topic is yet to be determined. Bob Rosenzweig, consultant to the Arts Commission from Stanford University, has suggested the following: "The Arts in the University and the University in the Arts" with central issues being – "1) education in the arts for increasingly career oriented students; 2) reconciling different, and often conflicting, ideas of now to evaluate performance and quality for arts faculty; 3) the role of the community in university arts programs; 4) is it necessary, in order to have strong programs in the arts, to have separate schools organized around them?; and so forth. The second part of such a program would focus on the fact that universities have become key players in national arts enterprise, offering employment for large numbers of artists, training and education for many more, and providing important venues for performance among other things. Does this matter? Does anyone care?"

The suggested conference topic cited above has not as yet been discussed by the Arts Commission but will be soon as we proceed to plan this national conference. It is very important that the major thrust of the conference be something which will enable us to further define and achieve our goals. The questions posed and suggestions for topics for discussion made by Bob Rosenzweig are central issues that many arts faculties face.

We will use the Fall, 2000 to begin to synthesize all that we have learned and our "strategies for improvement" should follow. It is anticipated that a final report will be completed by May, 2001 for submission to the President, the Project Management team, and the University.

Science & Technology Planning Commission
March 22, 1999
Anita Jones, Planning Commission Chair

I. Scope

The objective of the Science and Technology Planning Commission is to develop a set of strategies that will, if executed, guide the University to greater excellence in education and research in science and technology. Our purview spans the natural, physical and life sciences as well as engineering and technology across the University. This Commission has a scope that naturally overlaps to some extent with all the other Planning Commissions.

We will consider academic programs, research activity, and public outreach (especially technology transfer) in the many areas. Organizationally, the Commission will consider the science departments in the College of Arts & Sciences, all departments in the School of Engineering and Applied Science, and the basic science departments in the School of Medicine. However, it is not useful to draw a strong organization-based definition of the purview of the Commission. Today, there are fruitful science and engineering research activities that involve the clinical medical departments, and many other departments that are not listed as the classical science and engineering departments.

To a great extent, it is the individual faculty or groups of faculty who pursue a vision that attain the kind of excellence in education and research that Virginia 2020 seeks. The scope of our endeavor is to find strategies, opportunities and structures that empower and nurture faculty, as well as the central administrative leadership as they seek increased excellence in science and technology.

II. Models of Excellence

The Commission will explore a number of strategies or models for attaining excellence. We will review programs at other institutions that embody these models. We will also review such programs inside the University. Models include, for example, opportunistic pursuit of a scientific topic "whose time is right", a model used by the Center for Biological Timing, and the integration of scientific discovery with planned spin-off of patented technologies and products, a model used by the Center for Recombinant Gamete Contraceptive Vaccinogens. We will seek models that support the special strengths and objectives of Mr. Jefferson’s University.

A list of case studies of programs with potentially interesting models for excellence has been compiled. A sub-group of the Commission will explore some of these case studies, preparing them for the entire Commission to study. We anticipate some visits to sites here and at other institutions in order to understand in detail the experience of those executing a model program. We anticipate inviting speakers to the University to discuss their models and programs.

Science and engineering endeavors typically require laboratories and extensive experimentation. For both research and education programs, each model will include a plan for financial sustainability over its lifetime. Funding sources outside the University must be forthcoming in almost all cases.

Timeline: The Commission subgroup will be created by Spring 1999.

The first collection of case studies and model definitions will be compiled by Fall 1999.

III. Metrics

The Commission will review existing programs both inside and outside the University. We are in the process of compiling quantitative metrics that characterize some of the dimensions of the University activity today. The document is referred to as Vital Statistics. These descriptions describe activities in terms of level of funding, source of funding, degrees granted annually (undergraduate and graduate), course hours taught annually, staffing (academic, research, technical and administrative), organizational structure, physical space, technology transfer achievements, research publications, and department rankings. Our first draft of this material has been compiled with the assistance of the Office of the Vice President and Provost, the Office of Institutional Assessment and Studies and the Office of Sponsored Programs.

Similarly, we will develop a Vital Statistics description for selected peers and competitors. These Vital Statistics packages will document both the comprehensive science and engineering activities of selected institutions, as well as some specific case study activities that are using a model for excellence that may be of interest in developing our own strategies.

Timeline: Vital Statistics for the University of Virginia Science and Technology activities will be completed by Spring 1999.

Vital Statistics for outside institutions will be developed by Fall 1999.

Opportunity Analysis

Research opportunities arise in science and engineering areas for a number of reasons. The time may be ripe in a single discipline area, or in a multi-discipline area, in which the precursor research has been accomplished and a concentrated research effort can yield rich results. Opportunities can likewise arise because the University or sets of individuals in the University are poised to achieve greatness. This can be in research or in education.

Opportunity can arise because of external influences, such the opportunity for attaining special relationships with industry. There is a particular opportunity today for information technology; it is materially changing how research is performed in some areas, and how knowledge is packaged and communicated to students.

Timeline: Fall 1999 

Strategies for Excellence

The Commission will define a set of models and strategies – fundamental principles – that will define how the Commission believes that the University should take action and make strategic investments in science and technology in the near and far term. It is very clear that there are myriad opportunities and choices will have to be made. Not all opportunities can be pursued.

While we will identify specific opportunities in terms of specific research and education areas, we expect that there will be multiple ways to implement the strategy. Decision-making will require a process and a dialog that involves all the stakeholders: the faculty, students, Board of Visitors, alumni, and central administration. We will jointly craft that process with the administration and involve ourselves in its execution. Recall that much of what is excellent in the University is created by individuals, particularly faculty; often it is not directed from the central administration. Strategic choices for the University of Virginia need to be made in some disciplined way that is broadly inclusive of all the stakeholders. This Commission can be a lubricating and constructive part of that process.

Timeline: The Commission will create a written strategy statement by Fall 1999.

Decision-making will follow.

Communication Plan

Virginia 2020 needs to be a process that includes on-going dialog among all the stakeholders. We will use the various new media of the University to communicate from time to time with the various stakeholders. In the early stages (Spring 99) periodic articles that describe Virginia 2020 activity have been published. This has been orchestrated by the University Public Relations Office.

Our dynamic web-site contains a variety of information about the Commission’s activity. It is updated on an on-going basis.

The Chair has met with, or addressed, several groups of faculty who focus on science and technology. They include the College Science Department Chairs, the ad hoc Faculty Form, the School of Engineering and Applied Science (SEAS) faculty as a whole, and the SEAS Research Advisory Council. This outreach activity will continue.

During the summer, we will develop several articles to be place in the University news publications in the Fall. When written products are developed we will have some town-hall discussion sessions and will organize other forums for discussion of our results.

Timeline: On-going.

Note: This plan was developed by Anita Jones and has not been approved by the Commission, so it is subject to change.

International Activities Planning Commission
March 22, 1999
Brantly Womack, Planning Commission Chair


The International Activities Planning Commission had its first plenary meeting on 21 January. Currently it is exploring the five dimensions of international activities outlined at the Senior Leadership meeting of 14 December. Task groups have been formed for each of the dimensions, and they will make their first reports at the third plenary meeting on 25 March. By the end of the year the International Commission hopes to prepare a statement of principles concerning international activities. It also expects to have completed the arrangements for a conference to be held in October and to have specified research tasks related to metrics for each of the task groups. Research will proceed over the summer.

Progress and Plans


Commission members were identified in the fall, and the first meeting was held early this semester. Because a considerable amount of work will be done at the task group level, plenary meetings are planned for once a month. The calendar and location are available on our website. In the two meetings thus far, we have discussed the overall structuring of international activities and of the International Commission, and we have organized task groups with convenors.

Separate from the ongoing meetings, we have been planning a two-day conference in October entitled, "Universalizing the University: New Challenges and Best Practices." Also, a survey of international activities was carried out in collaboration with Development, but the results have not yet been analyzed.


Our meeting this Thursday should show major progress on the part of the task groups. Most of the meeting will be devoted to their reports. At the same time, progress is being made on the conference.


Spring 1999:  further progress on task definition, finish organizing the conference; write a statement of principles for international activities.

Summer 1999:  research on aspiration targets and metrics

Fall 1999: conference 15-16 October; beginning of practical activity of task groups stressing greater involvement of University community.

Spring 2000:  Completion of task group activities; coordination of plans and options.

Summer 2000 and beyond:  Further work as needed.

Information-based planning and the International Commission


At first glance, the task of the International Commission is to cope with a remarkably diffuse array of activities that permeate the entire fabric of the University. However, the fundamental mission is actually quite focussed, though no less challenging. It is to accomplish an intellectual and organizational repositioning of the University in its relationship to the world. Hitherto, the University’s international activities have been at the fringe of its "normal" activities. Since the University is a quite active place its global periphery is quite extensive, and so its international activities appear to be everywhere—on a 3600 circumference—but unorganized and at a distance from the University’s core activities and its core identity.

This is a perfectly natural perspective. But it is not a very scientific one, nor is it appropriate for a major university on the edge of a new millennium. It is a Ptolemaic view of the universe of the University: how the world appears to us rather than how it actually is. In fact, the world does not revolve around Charlottesville, just as Copernicus cautiously observed about the solar system. While this may be an unsettling observation, it does explain the booming, buzzing confusion of international activities on the University’s periphery. If we adjust to being part of the world rather than the center of our own world, then the current confusion on the periphery can become intelligible parts of our trajectory.

The question then becomes one of how to organize the planning of international activities. We have come up with five dimensions of international activities and have organized corresponding task groups. There are four substantive dimensions and one organizational one:

  1. Encouragement of international activities of UVA students and scholars. This includes study abroad programs and research programs, but also encouragement of individual international initiatives.
  2. Enriching international education at UVA. This should involve not only the improvement of programs with an explicit international orientation, such as foreign languages, but a consideration of how international content can be enhanced and coordinated more generally.
  3. Support for foreign students and scholars. Not only does Southern hospitality require proper attention to the needs of foreign students and scholars, but reciprocity of our own external activities requires it. There are many facets of support, and they differ for undergraduate students, graduate students, and visiting scholars.
  4. Developing programs and policies for international institutional contacts and projects. The most spectacular current project of this sort is of course Qatar, but there are many other levels and venues of international institutional cooperation to be considered.
  5. Creation of an appropriate institutional framework for the coordination and encouragement of international activities.

These dimensions can be compared to four fingers and a thumb: The first four are the essential broad categories of international activities. The fifth confronts the organizational question of how the University of Virginia needs to reshape itself in order to acknowledge its identity as part of the world and to encourage its international activities. The organizational thumb and the active fingers need each other. Without a central, encouraging organization, increased international activities mean increased confusion and headaches for the University, and unremitting frustrations for the scholars errant. But organization is not everything. Without serious attention to what actually does and can go on at the University, any organizational reform is likely to create a hollow shell.

The task of the International Commission, therefore, is to conceptualize and to begin the process of folding the existing international activities into the University’s core identity and institutions, and thereby giving further encouragement and structure to our global reality.

Aspiration groups

We have not yet arrived at a definite cluster of five universities that might compose our aspiration group. The task groups have been asked to identify potential members, but they do not report until 25 March.

In any case, however, I expect that the question of aspiration groups will remain complex. This is not due to fuzziness or to fact-anxiety, but to the following methodological problem. There are three categories of the performance of other universities that should attract our attention: best universities (places with top overall reputations in international activities); best practices (concrete activities and accomplishments that might be copied); and feasible models (universities with comparable ecologies who are doing better than we are). These categories will certainly overlap, but they are not identical.

All three should play important roles in our thinking. If we don’t consider the best universities then we are not aiming for second rank but for third. If we focus entirely on whole-institution situations then the thumb will prosper while the fingers wither. The problem is not how to be mistaken for a global university but how to be one. Lastly, if we ignore the specific constraints and responsibilities of being a state university then we will have a place to go but no place to start, and our plans will head toward the shelf. There will be places with a triple match, and I hope there are five of them. But we have not found them yet, and there is still much to be learned from a broader variety of institutions.


The identification of metrics for the aspiration referents and for University of Virginia will be a complicated and difficult process. The task groups are wrestling with this question now, and one of the major tasks over the summer will be to research these questions.

Gap and Opportunity analysis

I hope that the October conference will make a major contribution to everyone’s sense of gaps and opportunities. This will be reinforced by empirical metrics and by the more extensive interaction between the International Commission and the University community planned for next year.

Strategies for improvement

These are the culmination of the planning process, and we expect to produce a comprehensive set of such plans by the end of next year.


DocumentsProgress ReportsMeetingsPeopleYour Comments
DocumentsMeetingsCommission MembersPresident's Home PageYour Comments