Graduate education task force report narrow, misleading

By Rick Altman

In Sunday's Gazette, University of Iowa Graduate College Dean John Keller explained that “pursuit of excellence comes through assessment.” Assessment is needed, but not as conducted by the provost's task force.

The task force was charged with articulating “priorities for increased excellence in graduate education.” But Provost Wallace Loh devalued this charge by insisting that faculty and student quality not be evaluated. Why not? Can excellence be increased by neglecting research quality?

Of 176 degree programs assessed, 44 are in Arts/Humanities. Yet only three of 21 committee members hail from the Arts/Humanities.

Statistics provided by the Graduate College did not include evaluations of quality. Task force members should have insisted on expert input.

Keller notes that “The focus of the assessments was on graduate student outcomes.” But the committee defined “student outcomes” narrowly. Instead of stressing research quality or student placement, it emphasized easily measurable (but not necessarily pertinent) figures including “time to degree.”

That narrow focus meant the committee overlooked genuine markers of excellence. Take Film Studies. The national prize for best dissertation won by an Iowa Film Studies student - not taken into account. Iowa dissertations published by prestigious presses - deemed less important than the time it took those students to complete their degrees. Placement in tenure-track positions at Yale, Chicago, Notre Dame, etc. - not considered. The role of Iowa Ph.D.s in developing Film Studies as an academic discipline - ignored in favor of time-to-degree data that make no distinction between a diploma mill and a world-class program.

Task force membership had a clear effect on committee findings. Of 23 degree programs rated “exemplary,” 17 are represented by task force members. Of 71 “high quality” programs, 40 are represented. But of the 26 lowest-rated Arts/Humanities degree programs, none is represented on the task force.

The task force also did not change a single evaluation after they received departmental responses.

Loh calls the task force recommendations “preliminary.” Yet the Graduate College has withdrawn fellowships from programs designated as “additional evaluation required.” Why this rush to judgment?

My own program, Film Studies, has been showered with letters of support from prominent scholars; 100 were e-mailed to university administrators. Yet Loh claims there has been little response to the task force report.

Keller wrote that “of the 14 graduate programs identified as requiring additional evaluation, one-half were in the humanities and one-half were in the sciences and social sciences.” But the task force evaluated five separate areas. The Arts/Humanities area constitutes not half the programs evaluated, as Keller implies, but one-fifth.

I feel a profound sense of shame when our university's chief academic officers proclaim that restructuring should be based on something other than faculty and graduate student excellence. Certainly we face unprecedented financial challenges, but unless evaluation is based on our long-standing commitment to genuine excellence, the outcome will damage the university rather than serve it.

Rick Altman is professor of Cinema and Comparative Literature, University of Iowa.