| |
Yale University Evaluation
Report
Standard One: Mission and Purposes
As Yale University approaches its tercentennary in 2001, it does so with an
undiminished sense of mission and community.
Many American universities have become formidable societal institutions that
are looked upon by various publics, at one and the same time, with admiration,
high expectations, envy, and distrust. As fascination with universities and their institutional influence grows, it is easily forgotten that for all directly involved in it-faculty, undergraduates, graduate students, staff and alumni-higher education itself constitutes one of the most honorable and elevated forms of public service.
Yale is a superb example of this public service and the country has benefitted
from Yale's contribution to the public welfare since colonial days. Neither 18th
century nor 20th century Puritans may see it as having achieved perfection, but,
in a worldwide comparison of universities, Yale, at the end of its third century, is
as good as they come .
Ezra Stiles, President of Yale in the last quarter of the 18th century, distinguished
between a grammar school, a college, and a university. The differences between
the three he saw essentially in the scope of instruction ranging from the classics at
one end to the "highest literature" of the learned professions at the other end.
Our modern understanding of a university has added research and, indeed,
comprehends teaching and research as but two sides of the same coin.
This is, of course, the case at Yale. President Levin, in his inaugural address,
postulated that only through the unfettered application of clear intelligence can
we advance genuine understanding of nature and of ourselves. This attitude
permeates Yale at all levels from the College to the Graduate School, though, the
very distinction between "college" and "graduate school" at Yale -fairly typical
for American universities-at times seems to make the web less seamless, the
continuum less continuous than is called for.
At a research-intensive university research and teaching have a wholly
dialectical relationship. Teaching benefits from research and research benefits
from teaching. The scholarship of all those who teach, especially those who
teach undergraduates, is enriched when the younger generation consciously, if
naively, questions it. If the university's public service is primarily the search to
know, not just the faculty and graduate students, but even the college students
are part of that search. One of the great strengths and indeed defining elements
of the Yale undergraduate experience, the system of twelve residential colleges,
while certainly not impermeable, may at times place too much emphasis on that
collegiate experience and thus obscure the continuum that can do so much to
enrich everybody's search to know.
President Levin's emphasis on advancing genuine "understanding of nature and
of ourselves" captures the broad range of Yale's purposes. The university is
justly proud of its well deserved reputation in the humanities, arts, and social
sciences. Its national "image", with much help from Yale, reflects these strengths
of the university. Again, a strong defining element may obscure the fact of and
the need for Yale's contributions in the natural sciences. As Yale pursues the
latter, it may have to face tensions not only over the use of resources, but also
over how the university represents and defines itself.
The following sections deal with specifics under headings provided by the
accreditation standards. The reaccreditation team offers its observations in the
spirit of colleagueship. We have tried our best to understand, though as mere
visitors our grasp will suffer from many deficiencies. Yale's outstanding present
leadership is working consistently and persistently to improve Yale further. In
those efforts it may take up some of our suggestions. That is less important,
though, than the continuous questioning of the institutional status quo that is
part of the very definition of all great universities.
Standard Two: Planning and Evaluation
A NEASC-accredited institution engages in planning efforts which are
"appropriate to the institution's circumstances," and which "involve the
participation of individuals and groups responsible for the achievement of
institutional purposes" (Standard 2.2). Further, it "evaluates the achievement of
its mission and purposes, giving primary focus to the realization of its
educational objectives" (2.4).
Planning and evaluation at Yale University are conducted at a number of
different levels, and in the 1990s considerable effort has been expended on
reorganizing and improving the ways these functions are carried out. Among
these efforts are the following: the Yale Corporation (board of trustees) is
devoting more of its time on a regular basis to issues of long-term planning and
goal-setting; a comprehensive planning framework for facilities has been put in
place; several new offices and services now address the concerns of graduate
students; and the governance of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences itself has been
studied and somewhat reorganized.
In the ten years since its last review Yale has responded effectively to a number
of pressing challenges, among them the respective roles of the faculty and the
administration in governance; the problem of a substantial amount of deferred
maintenance; budget deficits; and labor strife (including efforts to unionize the
graduate teaching assistants). A common response to such challenges has
involved the use of ad hoc committees of faculty members, administrators, and
others to address the situation, with the result that progress has been made in
each instance, often impressively so.
Planning and evaluation within the Faculty of Arts and Sciences (FAS) takes
place within a complex set of committees, both standing and ad hoc. At the center
is the FAS Executive Committee, composed of the president, provost, and deans
of the college and graduate school, with the committee acting as the "final
authority for most major FAS issues" {Self-Study, 12). The Expanded Executive
Committee adds to this group the deputy provosts and the four faculty
divisional directors. The administrative FAS Steering Committee {the provost,
the 2 deans, and the deputy and associate provosts) is charged with
implementing the poilicies of the Executive and Expanded Executive committees.
In addition a less formal group consisting of the non-faculty members of the
Expanded Executive Committee meets weekly for lunch to discuss and decide on
a number of important FAS concerns.
According to the provost academic initiatives and priorities are worked out
between the Executive Committee and the four Divisional Advisory Committees.
The latter, whose members (all faculty) are appointed by the provost and
president, review the work of departments and programs within each division,
and advise the "deans and provost about the quality and effectiveness, as well as the appointments needs" of the various departments {67). This structure seems to function well and to have legitimacy because of the strikingly collaborative framework of trust between the administration and the faculty of arts and
sciences.
Faculty members play a prominent role in the various standing committees
devoted to particular concerns, such as the University budget, the libraries,
information technology services, faculty compensation, science policies, etc. In addition faculty members are called upon to chair or otherwise serve on ad hoc committees convened to address some of the most pressing and contentious
issues, such as governance and appointments procedures, as well as more
specific concerns (e.g. the status of graduate students, renovations to University buildings, etc.).
Questions may be asked about the timeliness and efficiency of these approaches.
For example, the self-study describes two new offices and a new center to serve
the needs of graduate students, all established in the last several years. These efforts clearly show responsiveness to events and serious concerns, and the steps taken seem appropriate. Still, one might ask whether the issues thus addressed had not been apparent for a long time, indicating perhaps a lack of nimbleness in identifying and dealing with such problems in an effective and timely way. Similar questions could be raised about the efforts to mend certain long-troubled departments or larger academic areas.
There is plainly an impressive resolve at Yale to deal with issues of deferred
maintenance and facilities renovation in straightforward ways. The University
now prepares an annual capital budget as a part of the work of the Budget
Committee, and is developing a comprehensive approach to these issues which
involves spending extraordinary sums to attack an acknowledged problem. The
success in this area perhaps bodes well for similar approaches to other planning
issues identified in the self-study: the proper use of graduate students as
teaching assistants, student outcomes assessment, and the most appropriate
ways to evaluate teaching.
These latter two issues deserve special mention since the Self-Study singles both
out. The current methods of evaluating the instruction in courses at Yale College
seem plainly inadequate for an institution which places so much emphasis on
undergraduate instruction. Indeed, the absence of effective formal programs for
assessing and improving the teaching of faculty members stands in marked
contrast to the recent and commendable efforts to assist graduate teaching
fellows in the performance of their duties. There are many well-tested systems in
use at comparable institutions, and Yale should consider adopting one of them
soon.
In the area of outcomes assessment Yale has made good use of its office of
institutional research to conduct satisfaction surveys of students and graduates -
some of them collaboratively through the COFHE consortium. Nonetheless the
University acknowledges that it has not gone beyond such surveys and the
assessment of student performance conducted by faculty members in individual
courses. Claims that Yale graduates have obviously profited from their years at
the College miss the point that, at their best, formative approaches to assessment
can contribute to the improvement of teaching and learning themselves. With its
wel1-regarded institutional research office and its strong and traditional
emphasis on undergraduate education, Yale has the potential to be a leader and
powerful example in this area.
In sum Yale's great strengths in this area are:
-
Established and effective planning processes at the crucial levels; and
- A climate of trust and consensus between the senior faculty and the
administration.
Weaknesses or areas for further consideration include:
- Concern about lingering problem areas in the academic program; and
-
Inadequate approaches to the evaluation and assessment of teaching and
learning.
Standard Three: Organization and Governance
There are many ways to govern a university. Yale's governance structure has
long sustained an institution of academic excellence, and by all indications will
continue to do so for a long time to come. While in the recent past, governance at
Yale has had its problems, at present the Corporation, president, administration,
and faculty divide responsibilities in a reasonable way that works well and
enables it to carry out its academic mission with integrity at the level of a world-
class university.
There is no doubt that Yale has a "rather distinctive and unusual structure for the
Faculty of Arts and Sciences (PAS)." FAS has no dean with overall
responsibility. Instead, the provost and two deans, one of the College and the
other of the Graduate School, share leadership responsibility. The two deans
share responsibility for untenured faculty reviews, and with the provost, they
share responsibility for overseeing the process of senior appointments and
recruitments.
This structure has its advantages and disadvantages. Yale appreciates its
advantages. Many high level administrators attend to faculty appointments and
assessments. The directors of Divisions also share some of the oversight
functions that might otherwise be more concentrated among the president,
provost, and a single dean. Because the positions of the deans of the College and
Graduate School are perceived as strong, Yale also can recruit strong
administrative leaders to these positions from within the faculty ranks. Another
unusual feature of the division of academic authority (for a research university)
is that the faculty members at Yale, acting collectively by division, have greater
de facto and de jure authority over tenure decisions (although not the tenure
process) than at Yale's peer institutions. The division of labor is more complex
and difficult (at least for outsiders) to comprehend, but the quality of the present
administration provides evidence to support the strong sense of most insiders
that Yale's academic governance structure works well for the institution.
Over the past decade, since the last re-accreditation report, Yale's governance
structure has been put to some significant tests. The effective restoration of
Yale's deteriorating physical plant, which is now well underway, is testimony to
how well the governance structure can recuperate. Although many of Yale's
academic departments are among the best in the world, some were seriously
declining. With the concentrated attention of many people, many have begun to
be "turned around." There is of course more work to be done in this regard. The
present administration, led by President Levin, has shown the capacity to deal
with such tough challenges in a way that seems to galvanize the university
community.
A good governance structure is a necessary but not sufficient condition for
institutional success. Even more than universities with clearer divisions of labor
in their academic administration, Yale depends on building consensus among the
top administrators and faculty members of FAS. The people who occupy the top
governing posts at Yale today, most of whom were appointed by President
Levin, work well together. The president, provost, directors of Divisions, deans,
and masters of Colleges are an effective team. Their strong academic leadership
reflects the benefits of Yale's tradition of recruiting internally from among the
most ,talented members of its faculty. They have a unified vision of the
University's purpose. They are adept at articulating and responding to many of
the demands that a changing internal and external environment places on the
institution. They are cognizant of the need to attend to the critical issues facing
an excellent institution of higher education today, ranging from recruiting and
retaining world-class faculty members to deciding how to adapt to a rapidly
changing world of information technology.
Yale's present leadership knows how to derive the greatest benefits from its
governance structure, but they also know that its governance structure presents
several challenges for a future that promises to bring ever more work to the
highest-level positions of academic administration. One challenge is the need for
extra staffing of the offices of the Dean of the College and Dean of the Graduate
School in order for these deans to continue to carry out the ever-increasing
responsibilities. These offices work very well, but they are already stretched in
their staffing, and as they become more successful, they will be stretched even
further. Their staff members appear to be every bit as energetic as their deans.
Only extra staffing is likely to enable them to keep up with the pace of academic
innovation, the ever-increasing need for new support services for students and
faculty members, and the unrelenting demands for energetic recruitment and
retention of faculty members in a highly competitive environment.
A second challenge created by the unusual governance structure is to make the
lines of authority less opaque to their constituents outside of the top-level
administrative offices of the provost and deans. The lines of authority and
division of labor are bound to be far clearer to occupants of the offices than to
outsiders. The multiple paths to a single outcome, when that outcome relies
upon a consensus among several people, can cause some confusion and delay in
decision making.
When combined with the distinctive structure of Yale's academic administration,
the uniqueness of Yale's internal promotion process leads to a greater than usual
sense of bewilderment and frustration among many non-tenured members, who
have the greatest stake in understanding Yale's tenure process. Absent a "tenure
track" many non-tenured faculty members, particularly in their early years at
Yale, have an acute sense that they are less well informed about the rationale,
process, and standards of promotion than their peers at competing institutions.
Although this sense varies considerably across departments, it is a source of
alienation among a substantial group of non-tenured faculty members.
Once one moves from the top-level of the academic administration, the
administrative structure of Yale is less distinctive and more transparent to
insiders and outsiders alike. The president has effectively reorganized parts of
the administrative organization where lines of authority were unclear or
inefficient to carrying out the institution's purposes. The Student Financial and
Administrative Services, for example, has been reorganized under a new
associate vice-president. These sorts of reorganization have boosted morale by
creating an apparently more effective and efficient administrative team.
The question remains as to how effective any existing University governance
structure will be into the future. Upon the president's recommendation, the
Corporation has instituted a five-year review plan involving members of the Yale
community to supplement its annual internal review process. This more
comprehensive review of Yale should serve the University well by assessing in a
systematic way the extent to which Yale's governance structures are serving their
purposes and satisfying their constituents.
Two issues are worth highlighting in this regard, one general to higher education
and the other more specific to the governance structure of Yale University. The
general issue is whether the high-level administrative positions that are now in
place will be adequate to the demands of the foreseeable future of higher
education. Yale administrators are aware, for example, of the very high
likelihood that they will soon need to create a new position in the provost's office
to oversee the academic uses of new information technologies.
An issue more specific to Yale is whether its unique process for promotion of
untenured faculty members will be sustainable in the future. The highest
standards for promotion of non-tenured faculty members are compatible with a
wide array of promotion processes. Among its peers, Yale has chosen a process
that may be the hardest to explain and to execute consistently. Peer institutions
that set equally high or in some cases higher standards for promotion to the
tenured ranks have more transparent and less taxing processes. Whether Yale's
process for promotion will serve it well into the future is an open question,
which the Yale administration and faculty have the greatest stake in revisiting.
Standard Four: Programs and Instruction
Standard Four of the NEASC is designed to ensure the soundness of educational
programs offered by the institution, both in terms of content and the quality of
instruction. It is impossible for these purposes to review the particulars on the
full range of Yale University's academic programs. Even the more restricted
charge to review, at once, the seventy -plus programs offered by Yale College is
itself a daunting task. It is possible, however, to make some general observations
about the quality of undergraduate education at Yale, which, quite deservedly, is
a source of institutional pride. Indeed, many of the criticisms leveled at
universities all over the country for their failure to take seriously undergraduate
education do not seem relevant at Yale University where programs and
instruction clearly meet the specified NEASC standards. This is not to say that
there is no room for improvement, but to state with confidence that those areas
where undergraduate education could be further strengthened are recognized
and efforts are underway to address them.
Among the many positive aspects of the academic programs of Yale College is a
strong commitment to liberal education that is shared not only by the
administrators of the College, but also by the faculty, the senior officers of the
University, and the members of the Corporation. There is little doubt that the
University intends to continue the tradition of liberal education as the
foundation for Yale College, and to sustain Yale College as the heart and soul of
the University. Beyond rhetoric, such matters as the governance structure,
resource allocations, the involvement of professional school faculty, certain
university policies, and even the president's own agenda reflect this focus. Yale
is to be commended for its insistence that teaching loads not be compromised as
a means of attracting faculty, its requirement that senior faculty teach
undergraduates, and its increasing support of graduate student training in the
art of teaching.
In terms of degree requirements, Yale College expects its students to complete a
substantial amount of coursework overall and, in addition to fulfilling a major
program of study, to distribute courses over other fields of knowledge, to
complete a foreign language requirement, and to meet a senior requirement
appropriate to the major. The requirements for various programs are clearly laid
out in publications along with course descriptions. A number of oversight
committees monitor curricular matters, and we were able to identify very few
issues that were not already the object of study by faculty and/ or administrators.
We were, in fact, struck by the significant, perhaps even uncommon, amount of
faculty and administrative energy devoted to these concerns.
There are no easy answers to the curricular issues under consideration, and we
would not pretend in a such a short period to put forward our conclusions about
matters under serious study by Yale faculty and administrators (particularly
when some of these issues are unresolved on our own campuses). But, as
outsiders, there are a few observations that we might make in the interests of
offering additional perspective and prompting fresh thinking.
Even for an institution with splendid financial resources, Yale is attempting to
provide a particularly wide array of programs, while at the same time enhancing
many aspects of undergraduate education. To the extent that, in leaner times, it
becomes less possible to do it all, one might well look at this issue of proliferating
programs as one place where a higher threshold might allow resources to be
redirected to other areas of need.
It should be underlined that the concern here is not the quality of what is being
offered. Indeed, there are procedures in place with the Course of Study
Committee which provide for review of new or revised courses and major
programs. Moreover, one of the several extant ad hoc committees is examining
the nature, number, and structure of Yale's majors, and this, we think, is a matter
worthy of attention.
The large number of academic program options available to students is a real
strength of Yale College. But it is also the case that most of these programs
individually attract very few majors, compared to a handful of departments in
which, collectively, a vast majority of the student body elects to major. Given the
level of infrastructure provided when programs are officially designated majors,
and the uneven distribution of students among the various programs, the costs
and benefits of this extensive array of academic options need to be weighed. The
creation of new majors refreshes the curriculum and exposes students to new
and exciting fields of knowledge, but we question whether it is necessary to
establish a formal major, with its attendant costs, in order to enjoy these
intellectual benefits. We heard from faculty and students that the current system
drives students to double major in order to achieve the official certification of a
secondary field of in-depth study. The completion of the second major often
means jumping some academic hurdles which mayor may not be as important
as taking advantage of other course opportunities from among the rich array of
possibilities open to students.
While regular oversight by the Course of Study Committee can ensure that even
the smallest program is academically solid, the overall imbalance among
departmental course offerings creates a situation where, regardless of major,
student expectations are potentially conditioned by the largest departments.
Measured against the yardstick of History and English at Yale, it is not surprising
that the course offerings in less prominent majors seem limited. Interdisciplinary
programs present particular challenges in terms of managing students'
expectations. A real concern is whether, given the strength of the departmental
structure, these expectations can be satisfied if trade-offs with departmental
course offerings are required. A set of intellectually rich minors might signal
students to have more realistic expectations.
Although many institutions find merit in permitting the completion of minors, in
the context of Yale College's program, implementing such an option would
indeed require "thinking outside the box." This exercise might be useful in
several areas of undergraduate education at Yale.
Another issue is whether there may be secondary financial and curricular
impacts of the desire to give greater emphasis to the sciences at Yale. While the
financial requirements of adequate laboratory facilities have been recognized, it
is not equally clear to us whether the related programmatic consequences of
recruiting additional science majors have been fully considered. One can
imagine, for instance, curricular ramifications for other program areas that will
also need to compete for resources already spread thinly among some areas.
A case in point may well be the teaching of mathematics. Yale is not alone in
struggling with this issue, but we heard concerns from students about the quality
of instruction at the introductory level. Some administrators have begun to
wonder whether this is an area where Yale should deviate from its traditional
use of ladder faculty and seek to engage individuals to fill this specific function
with the highest level of skill. Students have also suggested that they might be
better served in this way. We would encourage such thinking and consideration
of the educational trade-offs which are likely to increase in importance as more
science majors require such coursework. Judged against the educational benefits
to students, it is difficult to see what compromise is made to fundamental
academic values if, outside the normal ladder structure, individuals are engaged
and rewarded solely for their teaching skills in these basic areas.
Another concern related to the desire to enhance the sciences at Yale is how to
extend the benefits beyond the sciences. Assuming that this is perceived to be
desirable, a plan might be developed to facilitate this so that the sciences "up the
hill" become more than a stronger and better supported enclave. For the
advantages of this investment to be realized fully, ways will need to be found to
expose students who are not majoring in the sciences to these enhanced academic
resources, toward the end of broadening students' intellectual horizons.
An area of perennial concern at universities is academic advising, and Yale is no
exception. Two of the residential colleges are experimenting with using a
smaller cohort of more intensely involved faculty. Given what we heard from
some junior faculty about the informal cues given to them about even voluntary
service, one may well be slightly skeptical about the feasibility of expanding this
experiment throughout the residential colleges.
In response to President Levin's challenge, Yale College has begun several
related efforts to globalize its student body and programs, a development that
has come surprisingly later to Yale than to some of its peer universities. The
recent reorganization of the administrative offices designed to support foreign
student and scholar services appears to be making an immediate difference in
the level of support for foreign members of the Yale community. These services
will become more important as the number of foreign students grows.
We note with special interest the enhancement to the advising of students for
study abroad, through the newly created Office of International Education.
While the on-campus experience is academically very rewarding, professional
guidance about overseas alternatives to on-campus programs should be available
to Yale students. The commitment that has been made to provide a new level of
service at Yale in an area that is well developed at many peer institutions is a
very important first step. It will also be important to engage departments in
envisioning the ways that international study could enhance majors. The related
establishment of a Language Teaching Center should help equip students for the
study abroad experience.
A key aspect of Standard Four is that the institution have policies and
procedures to ensure an "orderly and ethical" program for admission of
students. By any quantitative measure, Yale's admissions program is a success.
There are few institutions in the country that have a more talented applicant pool
and few that are more successful in enrolling such high percentages of those
applicants who are offered admission. Even more noteworthy is the thoughtful
manner in which the admissions decisions on individual applicants are made.
Despite external pressures from the media by means of public rankings, Yale has
kept a keen eye on the target. It has a thoughtful decision process that involves
an effort to make reasoned individual judgments in the interest of crafting in the
aggregate an exciting and diverse class that will become an important
educational force in the classroom, and, importantly for Yale, in the residential
colleges. The professional admissions staff appears to retain appropriate
decision-making responsibility even for those categories of students that attract
the interest and attention of other campus constituencies. It is also apparent that
the staff is attentive to the growing challenges of making informed decisions at a
time when many factors are make it more difficult to distinguish among students
who have become increasingly sophisticated about how to play the system to
their personal advantage.
It should also be noted here that the comparatively generous financial aid
policies of the University are designed to reinforce these academic objectives of
enrolling a diverse and academically talented class and, insofar as we can
determine, this is indeed the case. Aid to foreign students is one area in which
new efforts are being made to support recruitment goals.
In sum, Yale has substantial strength according to virtually all measures of the
various components of NEASC's Standard Four. We would note, in particular,
the following areas:
- Superior faculty resources are devoted to undergraduate education, both
inside the classroom and outside, the latter reinforced by the residential
college system.
- The programs of Yale College, supplemented by the resources of the
professional schools, offer curricular depth and breadth.
-
Ongoing administrative and faculty oversight of the academic experience at
various levels is provided by the residential colleges, departmental structures
which provide for a Director of Undergraduate Study for each major,
divisional committees, the Yale College dean's office, the provost's Office
(which is organized so as to ensure subject area expertise) and even the
president himself, who shows particular knowledge and interest in the
educational programs of the College.
-
Mechanisms for internal faculty review and occasional external review of
programs are in place, although it is not entirely clear how systematic the
process is and how formal the commitment is to follow-up.
-
Writing is emphasized across the curriculum and support for strengthening
writing skills is provided through a variety of tutoring programs, which seem
to be appreciated by students.
-
Several policies undergird the stated commitment to undergraduate
education, including a refusal to reduce the teaching obligation of faculty as a
recruitment incentive and the presumption that all senior faculty will teach
undergraduates.
-
A strongly competitive admissions position is maintained with the help of an
intelligent and highly professional process for selecting talented and multi-
faceted students.
-
Newly developed programs and excellent materials are designed to enhance
the support given to graduate students for strengthening their teaching skills.
-
The practice of returning certain faculty slots to divisional pools provides at
least some flexibility to mitigate the strong departmental influences on the
deployment of faculty resources.
Finally, we offer these observations:
-
Major programs have proliferated, including new interdisciplinary programs
that face the challenge of engaging departmental resources that have
competing demands placed upon them.
-
The imbalance in the number of majors, and therefore differential faculty
resources available to them, results in some practices that seem inconsistent
with Yale's traditions (e.g. limiting program enrollment in some fields).
- While we applaud the desire to make the science departments at Yale the
equal of their humanities counterparts, there may be unanticipated
consequences and secondary programmatic impacts of a shift in emphasis.
Some longer range thinking about these matters may be in order.
-
More formal support could be given to junior faculty to enhance their
teaching skills (although the Office of Teacher Preparation is beginning to fill
this void).
-
The mechanisms for providing feedback on the quality of teaching, including
to graduate students who seem particularly eager to enhance their skills, are
not regularized.
-
There is a conservative bias in addressing curricular issues and a certain
reluctance to consider alternative solutions to some problems, e.g. the
possible use of non-ladder faculty in particular areas.
-
The tenure system potentially affects the morale and the perception of junior
faculty about the wisdom of making the extra commitment to teaching and
advising that the College hopes to encourage.
-
It is hoped that, in keeping with the Yale tradition, faculty leadership can be
engaged more thoroughly to improve and make comprehensive the
evaluation of teaching.
Notwithstanding these concerns, Yale University, through Yale College, offers
exceptionally talented undergraduates superior academic resources to meet a
quite remarkable range of educational interests. While there are areas that can be
enhanced further, Yale satisfies Standard Four with distinction.
Standard Five: Faculty
That the Yale faculty is nationally and internationally distinguished is well-
known in both academic and non-academic circles; it has long been so, and it
hardly needs to be said. Many disciplinary faculties at Yale are consistently
rated among the top five nationally. Such national ratings, and the international
standing that can be inferred from them, are usually based on research
productivity and excellence, and a research university like Yale obviously
depends heavily on such indicators both for its ranking in the academic world
and its prestige in the larger world. But the Yale faculty is also distinguished in
another way that is unusual among research universities: for its commitment to
the teaching of undergraduates. Though we would like to have more reliable
and systematic comparative indices of how that teaching is rated by students, it
is clear that the faculty excellence extends into classroom teaching in many cases.
The recent faculty retrenchment and (partial) "freeze" on new faculty
appointments has meant that relatively few senior faculty members have been
added in the past few years. But when senior searches have been conducted,
they have generally had good results; Yale's recent record in senior recruitment,
regarded especially in the context of the difficulties experienced nationally in
persuading "stars" to move to new appointments, is a very good one. Similarly,
retention of Yale faculty recruited elsewhere has been by and large successful.
An important factor in recruitment and retention is the changing perception of
New Haven as a place to live and work; the University's efforts in behalf of the
community have had an apparent payoff in faculty stability and development as
well as in other areas. A steady problem, however, is the so-called "couple"
issue; with relatively few nearby academic institutions, Yale has more difficulty
in recruiting and retaining two-career academic couples than do some
institutions in other kinds of locations.
Faculty morale at Yale seems, in general, very good, although we note exceptions
in the variable moods of junior faculty. Yale seems to have come through some
lean hiring years with few visible scars, and faculty seem generally fairly content
with their lots at Yale and quite confident about both the university's direction
and its leadership on all levels. We did no formal survey of faculty morale, but
judging from several meetings with faculty members who spoke frankly about a
variety of issues, we feel comfortable in saying that most faculty seem happy to
be at Yale and feel fulfilled by its professional and intellectual milieu and
aspirations.
The self-study expressed concerns about faculty diversity and efforts to increase
the number of minority and female faculty; we endorse those concerns and urge
continued, perhaps accelerated, efforts on initiatives to identify and recruit
appropriate faculty members who would enhance the cultural and intellectual
diversity of the Yale faculties. At the senior faculty level, Yale has made modest
progr~s on the gender issue over the past ten years and now seems to stand in
about the middle of the pack among peer institutions. The numbers of other
"underrepresented" minorities are smaller; Yale seems to be comparable in most
these numbers to its research university peers, but there is no room for
complacency on this issue around the country, and we endorse the self-study's
implication that the issue needs continued, steady, and aggressive attention.
Some disciplines have greater than ordinary faculty needs. The administration
seems fully aware of these needs and is able to distinguish departments needing
special attention over the coming years. National rankings, yield rate in the
recruitment of graduates students, and job placements taken together provide a
fairly reliable index to programs that are not up to the typical Yale standard, and
the administration also seems highly sensitive to actuarial issues and to
generational balance in departments. We urge the University to move forward
steadily and with a carefully staged plan in renewing departments that need
help; the sciences as a group (though there are distinctions to be made in any
grouping) especially need attention now, and individual departments in other
areas also need urgent attention.
Departmentalization as a concept and decentralization as a strategy seem
generally to have served Yale well over the years, and they continue to do so.
The peer pressure to live up to the Yale standard-to be excellent in all
categories-means that most departmental units are anxious to improve
themselves with every opportunity, and understanding, leadership, and
incentive seems to be available (if needed) at the decanal and provostial level if
any local units falters. But it may be worth observing that the decentralized
model works best at continuities and where disciplinary consensus exists-that
is, in ways that assure continued excellence in established areas-and is less
good at seeing emerging areas of opportunity or development. Yale's record of
responding to new areas that span traditional departments and disciplines is a
good one-in areas such as African American Studies and Women's and Gender
Studies, for example-but there seems to be no continuing mechanism as such
for identifying growth areas beyond the grasp of individual disciplines. This
area of vision needs the constant attention of the provost and deans and perhaps
needs systematic review by some representative faculty body.
The question of the tenure system at Yale continues to be controversial, perhaps
the most divisive single issue on campus. Because the issue has been discussed
at length over the years and because it was formally revisited quite recently via
the Hartigan Report, Yale may not want to reopen discussion of the issue again
anytime soon. But because we ran into continuing concerns about it in a variety
of on-campus sessions, we make the following observations:
- Junior faculty morale is quite variable, ranging (usually) from great
satisfaction in early years with both the idea and reality of Yale, to anxiety
(and some cynicism) in later years, even among those junior faculty members
whose promotion prospects seem good. Nearly every junior
departure - whether early and by choice, or later and required - seems to
bring a lot of unhappiness to the surface. It can of course be answered that
tenure-track systems produce similar concerns and morale shifts (as indeed
they do), but the perception of low tenure prospects (though quite variable
from division to division and even department to department) is a continuing
problem.
- The understanding of the system as it actually exists, even though it has been
rationalized carefully; is not the greatest. Many tenured faculty members we
met seemed unable to explain the policy or the process clearly and junior
faculty feel that they get varied accounts from different people they consult.
We found no lack of clarity at administrative levels, but departments do
uneven jobs of communicating with junior faculty, both during recruitment
and once faculty are recruited into the system, and junior faculty believe they
are under-mentored in many (though certainly not all) departments. Junior
faculty we talked with used such terms as "culture of reticence" and "culture
of mystification," and they believe both that they need more clarity and more
support of their work while they are junior faculty. Junior faculty praise the
generous leave policy for junior faculty but desire more moral support from
their colleagues and more fully rationalized support for research and travel.
They also desire a more formal University program of orientation for new
faculty. But while many junior faculty express anxieties about their position
(of a sort similar to that in peer institutions with tenure-track systems), they
seem generally content in what most regard as a limited number of years they
expect to be at Yale.
-
Senior faculty, while expressing some anxiety about tenure policy and
procedures, do not seem generally desirous of a review of the issue.
Standards Six, Ten, and Eleven:
Student Services, Public Disclosure, and Integrity
In all areas Yale appears to meet or to exceed the standards delineated in
Standard Six. At the undergraduate level, the twelve Residential Colleges are the
core of the intellectual and social community for students and many faculty. The
facilities are physically splendid in their architecture and undergoing a
comprehensive program of renewal. Yale College provides leadership, advising,
and support for students at the individual College level, ranging from the peer
leadership of freshman counselors to masters, deans, resident and non-resident
fellows, and graduate affiliates. At the central level, Yale College also provides
an array of support services and programs including but not limited to physical
and mental health services, support for students with special needs, cultural
centers for ethnic minorities, dining, financial, career and international student
services. Health education programs invite peer involvement and collaboration
across disciplines. Athleticism is fostered at the intercollegiate level as well as
through modem and comprehensive recreational and fitness facilities.
Altogether, there appears to be a 'taut' and complex system of support for
students reflecting the developmental needs of individuals as well as of the
various subpopulations.
The Yale environment reflects a "culture of concern" for students, and the
bonding that is fostered within residential communities leads to a sense of
connectedness that is enduring. Students who choose to live off campus remain
close to their Colleges, and relationships with faculty and graduate students are
affirming of undergraduates' intellectual as well as cultural identities. Of
particular note is the integration of all students into the College system, resulting
from each student's random assignment to a College upon entry and the deans'
intentionally heterogeneous roommate assignments in the first year. Students of
color enjoy affinity group programming through the four existing cultural
centers; but they, and the assistant deans who have oversight for those centers
also are included in the mainstream through assigned duties on committees and
projects. Hence, 'self-segregation' is much less of a problem at Yale than at some
comparable colleges; and students remain open to building communities that
acknowledge differences but which celebrate commonalities and individual
talent, and which foster leadership.
Within the past five years administrative restructuring has created shifts in
reporting relationships and responsibilities, which seem to contribute to a
strengthening of administrative infrastructures in such areas as financial services,
health, career, and internship services. Students will find such offices easier to
navigate (both virtually and in person) and more likely to provide a 'one-stop-
shop' experience that will minimize bureaucracy.
The documents and web sites available to students provide concise and thorough
information about services, and invite responses and feedback from students.
Information-release policies are respectful and appropriate. Assessment and
evaluation is ongoing, and students report a high rate of satisfaction with their
experience, a circumstance reflected in high retention rates and alumni
satisfaction.
We offer these observations:
Because the Colleges function independently and with strong leadership, and
also because much of Yale's administrative structures are decentralized and
implicit rather than explicit in their governance, special efforts are required to
foster communication and create coherent systems. Also, opportunities and
resources may be required for staff development particularly focused on
improving administrative capacity for collaborative work and cross-training, for
using new technology and data systems, and for comprehensive needs
assessment.
Space for student activities-performance, organizations, recreation, etc. - has
been identified as a concern. Yale College has not included a Campus Center in
its renovation/construction plan in the interest of retaining activities at the
individual College level. However, there is a paucity of collective space useable
for larger events and programs. One potential site for multipurpose use space is
the new Fitness Center, which has ample useable space and is relatively close to
the undergraduate Colleges as well as to the New Haven community. The
addition of a juice bar and comfortable common areas, and the marketing of the
multiuse spaces for parties and other events, might lead to a more fully utilized
set of spaces within the Center. We noted the large number of students using the
fitness facilities on a Tuesday morning, and commend the planners for creating
spaces that are inviting to all recreational users.
With the arrival of more foreign students and others with special circumstances
and needs, it is imperative that providers (health care, advisors, counselors,
others) be prepared for adequate support, particularly in those cases where there
are language barriers or reluctance to accept Western health care practices.
Student Health Services are aware of these trends and are responsive.
Mental hygiene has an excellent reputation with students, deans, and faculty.
However, the perception persists that there is a long and unwieldy waiting list
for non-emergency counseling services, acknowledged by all to be much needed
within the Yale Community. It may be that additional resources should be
allocated to this unit.
The visibility of some services (study abroad, career services, health education,
etc.) can be enhanced by marketing and outreach activities. In each of these
areas, these efforts have begun.
The Graduate School has in recent years become increasingly responsive to the
requests of graduate students: for a Center (The McDougal Center is a very
appealing location for informal interaction and connection); for specialized
career services for students interested in academic as well as non-academic
careers; for professional teaching/learning/technology instruction. We heard
students report the need for connections beyond the departmental level, for
support for ethnic as well as interest groups, for child care, and for respectful
treatment.
Yale fulfills the letter and spirit of the NEASC standards in its documents and
publications and its institutional integrity. Externally it represents and reflects
the highest ethical concerns in its corporate behavior as well as its expectations
for individuals.
Standard Seven: Library and Information Resources
Library
Yale University's library collections are among the finest in the world. Their
breadth and depth meet educational needs of undergraduate students and the
research needs of graduate students and faculty. Not only are the collections
strong, but the level of annual funding for new materials will assure that the
collections remain strong in the future.
A major effort in recent years has been to increase and improve library space.
The new music library, which is a strikingly imaginative use of a former
courtyard in the Sterling Library, constitutes a facility for both users and
collections. This space seems to meet the special needs of music faculty and
students for years to come. The renovation of the public areas of the Sterling
Library is well underway and those parts that have been completed are
impressive. A third improvement has been the renovation of the Sterling Library
stacks to make the environmental conditions acceptable. The addition of a
remote storage facility is another project that has improved the library's ability to
meet the needs of users. It has removed much of the pressure on housing the
collections on campus and has provided an environmentally sound place to
house little-used materials. These materials are retrieved on a "within one
working day" basis, which seems to satisfy most users. Finally, the planning for
future improvements is impressive. The next phase of library renovation should
assure that users, particularly undergraduates, will have inviting places to work.
It should also make the integration of the Sterling and the Cross Campus
libraries much better and should create an underground space between the
libraries that will be a pleasant place for students to work and relax.
There have been a number of recent improvements in the electronic products and
services the Library provides. A Web interface to the online catalog has made
that catalog much easier to use, and the array of electronic abstracts and indexes
as well as the offerings of full-text electronic resources is impressive. A fifteen
million-dollar project to convert the Library's retrospective bibliographic records
to machine-readable form is under way. This project is scheduled to be
completed by 2002 and, when complete, will eliminate the need for most scholars
to consult the card catalog. More importantly, it will allow complete searching of
the Library's bibliographic records from remote locations. Another project of
note is the Service Quality Improvement Program. This will systematically
review the activities of the Library's public service points and will develop plans
to make improvements.
There are some areas, mostly noted in the self-study, where the University and
the Library could improve library services to undergraduates. The first
suggestion deals with the future of the residential college Libraries. At present,
these libraries serve largely as study spaces, with book collections that are in
many cases out-of-date al;1d poorly organized. These libraries are important
spaces that, if designed properly, could enhance the quality of life for students.
The Library and Information Technology Services are reluctant to get too
involved in planning for the future of these libraries because the administrative
and financial control of them rests with the colleges themselves. As part of the
renovation of the residential colleges, it would be wise to consider the future role
of the residential college libraries. They could remain as they are, with book
collections that are there primarily to contribute to the overall atmosphere, or
they could be developed as electronic resource centers that would provide a
place for research and study. Possibly, electronic resources that are not available
on the computers in students' rooms could be provided there. The intent in this
report is not to propose a particular solution, but rather to suggest that a
systematic review of the residential college libraries, in consultation with the
Library and ITS, be conducted as part of the residential college renovation
project.
A second suggestion is that the Library, working with the faculty of the college,
increases the presence of the Library's bibliographic instruction program in the
curriculum. Teaching students how to use library resources has become
increasingly necessary, largely because new electronic library products and
services are becoming available almost daily. Teaching students to use these
new tools in a classroom setting is much more efficient and effective than doing
it one-on-one in the Library. Faculty members who use the Library's
bibliographic instruction programs tend to continue using them semester after
semester. The need is to increase the number of faculty willing to devote a
portion of their class time to providing students with bibliographic instruction.
A third suggestion is that the Library attempt to provide more visible and
welcoming public service points in the Sterling / Cross Campus library complex.
Doing this is clearly a goal of the second phase of the library renovation project
and, if that project goes forward, the problem will be solved. However, if the
project does not go forward, other ways could be found to provide more visible
and welcoming public service points in the Sterling and Cross Campus libraries.
Information Technology Services
Information Technology Services (ITS) has made impressive progress in the past
few years. A robust campus network is in place and there are plans to make
improvements in the future. As part of the overall campus renovation, buildings
are being wired and a network infrastructure is being put into place. The
computing support system for students is good. There is a comprehensive
network in the residence halls and students paid by ITS provide basic computing
support. The faculty networking and support program is somewhat behind the
student program, but is making good progress. An impressive aspect of this
program is the financial support for computing provided to departments by the
university central administration. Each department receives $1,200 per faculty
member per year to support general computing, and faculty members are told
that their computers will be replaced on a four-year cycle. The funds in excess of
the amount needed to replace computers are to be used to fund staff who will
provide basic computing support for the department. Faculty with whom we
spoke were aware of this program and, although some reported problems, there
was confidence that it will meet their needs over time.
Good progress has also been made in developing programs to support
applications of instructional technology. There are a number of internal grant
programs that allow faculty to obtain computing equipment and staff support to
help them develop specific instructional technology programs. Again, faculty
were aware of these grants and many were very positive about them. ITS
describes its general support for instructional technology as the "academic
technologies pyramid." At the top are cutting-edge applications involving a few
faculty members and a very high per-unit cost. The idea is for programs
developed at this level to eventually become more widely available. The Digital
Media Center for the Arts is a focus for much of the top-level activity. The
second level focuses on using generalized tools and services and making them
ava1lable to a wider group of faculty. At the bottom are basic computing support
services that are available to all. ITS has developed a local computer program to
assist faculty in setting up course Web pages. Using this program, faculty with
little knowledge of HTML or Web design can develop Web pages to
communicate with their students. It was surprising how many junior faculty
members with whom we spoke had Web pages and appreciated having this
capability.
It is clear that good progress has been made in the area of information
technology. The major suggestion would be to try to move more quickly. The
sooner the complete faculty support program is in place the sooner the full
benefits will be realized. Probably the major concern should be the growth of the
second level of the pyramid. This is the area where the greatest demand will
occur and where the greatest benefit can be realized. The amount of staff
support needed to enable the second level activity to grow will be substantial. It
will require careful planning to assure that the needed staff and equipment will
be available.
Standard Eight: Physical Resources
Standard Eight seeks to ensure that the physical resources of the institution are
sufficient for institutional needs, are safe and secure, and are maintained
properly. The standard also requires that institutional physical planning be
linked to academic and student services, and to financial planning. Included in
the last must be a plan for addressing deferred maintenance.
On the basis of the information in Yale's self-study, on interviews and
conversations with faculty, staff, and students, and on a tour of selected facilities,
it is clear that the University meets these standards.
In its self-study, the University concluded, not surprisingly, that the physical
resources available for the College's programs are adequate for current needs.
To be sure, there are a number of program expansions envisaged by the
University that cannot be accommodated at this time, but that is a normal
situation. Part of Yale's longer-range plan includes expanding facilities to
achieve these ends.
To assure that campus space is safe, and secure, the University's Fire Marshal,
and the offices of Environmental Health and Safety and Security monitor
building condition and security. All new and renovated facilities meet all
curref}t building codes, and are ADA compliant.
The planning process that underpins the current level of facility renewal and that
forms the basis for future plans is impressive. The development of facility
programs, establishment of priorities, and incorporation of them in the overall
university financial plan seems to have been thoughtful and inclusive; faculty,
staff, and students have participated. The Campus Planning Group, as described
in the self-study, should continue as an effective group to provide a coordinated
and unified campus-wide plan for facility renewal and expansion that addresses
academic, student service, and overall support needs.
A decade or so ago, Yale recognized that maintenance of its physical plant was
inadequate and that the facilities were generally in a state of widespread
disrepair, a condition confirmed by the 1990 survey by Parsons Brinkerhoff.
Yale's response to the findings of that report and subsequent facility reviews has
been substantial and appropriate. The level of annual expenditure on facilities
projects today is impressive, as are the resulting restored and new facilities. The
ongoing facility renewal has also extended to the unglamorous areas of heating
plants, chilled water plants, and overall utility infrastructure.
To prevent a return of the facilities to their previous state of disrepair, the
University has developed a plan to increase substantially financial support for
facility maintenance. The level of support expected to be reached after a few
years should be adequate to maintain the restored and new facilities.
In sum, the University has recognized and addressed its difficulties with
facilities, and is on a trajectory to restore complete health to an extraordinary
physical resource.
Some observations and suggestions:
In the course of review of the self-study and from information learned through
on-campus tours and interviews, a few items emerged that might be considered
further by the University.
As noted in the self-study, Yale's buildings did not deteriorate overnight, but
were the victims of a lengthy period of neglect. While the current substantial
level of expenditure for renewal, if continued for a number of years, will restore
and enhance the University's facilities, all will be lost again if sufficient funds are
not provided annually for "routine" maintenance. The plan to provide, in a few
years, about $50 million annually for that purpose should be sufficient to
stabilize the condition of Yale's buildings. Nevertheless, it is likely that this
allocation will need persuasive advocates to sustain it in the future as funds for
facility maintenance seem to lie among the most vulnerable in any budget
allocation process and negotiation.
While most of the current facility renewal is focused on renovations, Yale still
continues to add some new building space with the concomitant requirement for
new funds to support new operational and maintenance requirements. Utility
and custodial costs quickly become apparent, but the need to set aside additional funds for long-term maintenance is easily overlooked, particularly since there is
little maintenance required early in the life of a new building. Perhaps Yale
might consider developing some administrative process to recognize and
quantify the long-term support needed for each additional building to assure
that the necessary additional maintenance funds are available when needed.
Yale might also consider instituting a system through which overall facility
health is evaluated regularly and dispassionately, with the results of the review
discussed with the University's senior leaders and, perhaps, with the
Corporation.
It is striking that the level of financial support for facilities projects has grown so
rapidly in so few years. The levels described in the self-study show the level of
support more than doubling in four years, increasing by more than $100 million
in the last year alone. It is not clear that the planning, project, and construction
management teams have grown correspondingly - it would be an unusual
university department to have grown at that rate. There is no suggestion here
that the current construction projects are being managed inappropriately. Still,
perhaps it would be prudent to assure that the facilities staff is large enough to
be able to manage the multitude of large projects now their responsibility.
The self-study noted that the Facilities Office needed to continue to -achieve
greater efficiencies in building maintenance, a suggestion that probably has been
made, with varying degrees of validity, about every internal institutional
maintenance operation. Nevertheless, the current limited use of outside
contractors to compare with internal operations is common practice elsewhere
and seems a solid strategy. Benchmarking studies of maintenance organizations
outside of the New Haven region might be a useful way to evaluate the absolute
effectiveness of both internal operations and outside contractors.
The University's efforts to develop a collegial, cooperative relationship with the
leaders of New Haven may set an example of thoughtful and healthy town-gown
relations. Whatever the principal purpose for the University's initiative in this
area, the result should, nevertheless, have a direct, positive influence on the
relative ease with which facilities projects negotiate the local approval process,
one of the major hidden costs and sources of uncertainty in most such projects.
Standard Nine: Financial Resources
The primary purpose of standard nine is to ensure that the institution is
financially stable, and that its fiscal resources are allocated in such a way as to
support the mission and purpose of the university. Moreover, standard nine is
concerned with the integrity of those processes that are followed to ensure sound
and prudent financial management of resources. Finally, this standard seeks to
determine if the goals and objectives of the institution are reflected in its efforts
to raise funds through philanthropy and that those goals and objectives are
clearly articulated to prospective donors.
The assessment of whether Yale University is in compliance with all or part of
standard nine is based, primarily, on an analysis of documents provided by the
university, including audited financial statements and other official documents.
In addition, discussions were held with those university officials who are
responsible for the day-to-day management of the institution. On the basis of
this assessment it is abundantly clear that the University meets or exceeds the
elements set forth in this standard. However, this conclusion notwithstanding,
there are issues of concern that are worthy of consideration by senior
management.
Yale is a financially stable institution. However, like other high-quality
institutions of higher learning, Yale does not operate within an environment of
unlimited resources. This obvious fact notwithstanding, the wealth of the
institution, which is reflected in the phenomenal growth in net worth that has
been experienced over the most recent several years, and the resources that are
made available to fund its highest priority initiatives, is abundant. This growth
has enabled the university to embark upon a massive capital projects agenda that
will consume, when complete, more than $1 billion in resources. Moreover, the
University is well managed, it has planned well for the future, and its priorities
seem to be well defined.
Yale's success appears to be a function of two factors. First, as noted, the
university appears to be well managed, and there is obviously a great deal of
collaborative and cooperative interaction among the senior officers. For this we
commend the president and his senior staff. Second, the university is the
beneficiary of the prosperous economic climate that has characterized much of
the decade of the 1990s, having taken full advantage of those investment and
philanthropic opportunities that have presented themselves. Here, in addition to
kudos that are so deserving, a note of caution is in order, a cautionary note that
applies not just to Yale but to all similarly situated colleges and universities. The
cautionary note applies to those elements of the Yale experience that are
predicated upon continued economic prosperity, notably, investment returns
and philanthropy.
An examination of the sources of revenue that comprise the Yale budget
provides a glimpse at the concerns to which we allude.
Tuition: Yale is not a tuition-dependent institution, deriving slightly more than
23 percent of its total revenue from gross tuition and fees. Given the strong
demand for admission as demonstrated by the high number of applications, and
admit and matriculation rates which are among the strongest in the country, this
source of revenue appears to be very stable.
Grant Support: Grant support, which makes up about 27 percent of the total, is
the largest single source of revenue. At the present time given the
competitiveness of the faculty and the composition of the research base, which is
predominantly health-related, this support appears to be stable. There are no
single grants that if lost would have a material effect on the university's
operating budget, and the university is projecting moderate growth in this area
going forward. At the same time, however, the university must remain mindful
of the fact that the level of Congressional support that the National Institutes of
Health have enjoyed to date are not guaranteed in the future.
Investments and Endowment Spending: The university's investment returns in
recent years have been very impressive. With an annualized return over the last
10 years of 15.4 percent, the university's performance is in the top 3 percent of
large university returns. The endowments investment performance, in
combination with a relatively conservative endowment spending policy, has
enabled the University to balance the two competing forces associated with
endowment management, prudent spending for current operations and long-
term asset preservation. The balance that has been struck is reflected in the fact
that the market value of the Yale endowment had more than tripled during the
period 1988 to 1998, rising from $2.1 billion to approximately $6.6 billion. At the
same time, the endowment's contribution to the operating budget had risen from
about 11.5 percent, or $68 million, to approximately 20 percent, or $219 million, a
222 percent increase. At June 30, 1999, the market value of Yale's investments
stood at approximately $7.2 billion.
Clearly, the university should take pride in these accomplishments. The returns
noted above and the sound management of the assets have contributed to the
university's ability to fund its highest priority activities, including the assault
that it has launched on deferred maintenance that is so wonderfully obvious
throughout the campus. At the same time, it was clear that university officials
are keenly aware of the implications of a significant downward market
adjustment. The very careful attention that is afforded to asset allocation and
manager selection decisions, and the diversification of the portfolio, are evidence
that management is acutely aware of the fact that what goes up will inevitably
come down.
Clinical Income: If there is one area of concern that is deserving of an emphasis-
added notation, it is that of clinical revenue, which contributes approximately 16.7
percent of total revenue. According to university officials, while clinical
revenues have continued to grow, they have not done so at the rates that they
would like to see. Given the uncertainty that characterizes the health care system
nationally, and the inefficiency of the physician practice plans locally, there is
rightfully some long-term concern on the part of university officials.
Fundraising: Fundraising, much like the return on investments noted above, is
very much a function of the prosperous economy that we have come to enjoy,
and to an extent, taken for granted. Yale's development efforts have been very
successful. The University completed a major campaign in 1997, raising more
than $1.7 billion against a goal of $1.5 billion. The ability of Yale to replicate this
feat, fn tomorrow's dollars, is very much dependent upon the economy and the
financial markets, and the perception that potential donors have regarding their
wealth. A major and sustained downturn in either the economy or the financial
markets will adversely effect the development efforts of Yale and similar
institutions.
In regard to fundraising at Yale, there are three issues that are worthy of
comment. The first has to do with unrestricted annual giving at Yale, which
given its size and stature, at about $12 million, is low, The second issue has to do
with the lack of diversification among donors to Yale, with more than 59 percent
of total giving in fiscal year 1999 coming from individuals, and a
disproportionately small percentage, 20.5, coming from corporations and
foundations. The same pattern was present during the campaign, with $1.2
billion, or, 71 percent of the $1.7 billion that was raised, having come from
individuals. The third and final issue has to do with the extent to which
fundraising is dependent upon Yale College donors. During the last campaign,
95 percent of the total raised came from Yale College and Yale Law School
donors. Clearly, the donor base is in need of diversification. A fair question to
ask is how much of the development burden can continue to be shouldered by
individuals from Yale College, as opposed to corporations and foundations and
individual donors from the professional schools?
These issues were discussed with the Vice President for Development, who is
aware that they need to be addressed in the near future.
The issues outlined above are the asset-side issues that are worthy of careful
consideration. There are far fewer issues on the liability side, only one in fact,
that is worthy of attention. That issue is the level of debt that the university has
taken on to fund its long-neglected physical plant.
Currently the university has approximately $1 billion of debt on its balance sheet.
These funds have been acquired, in both the tax-exempt and taxable markets, for
the purpose of underwriting a major renovation of its long-neglected campus
facilities. In addition to debt, the assault on the backlog of deferred maintenance
will also be funded from fundraising. During the last campaign approximately
$400 million was raised towards this effort. In the words of the Vice President
for Finance, during the 1970's and 1980's Yale was "a net consumer of physical
capital." The estimated backlog had approached $1 billion, and something had
to be done. While the level of debt that Yale has acquired appears to be high,
and the university plans to take on additional leverage over the next several
years, it is indeed the right approach for such an undertaking.
At Yale the liability side of the balance sheet (debt), has been actively managed in
conjunction with the asset side (the endowment, and short-term investments).
Given the magnitude of the problem, the length of time it will take to
address the problem, and the strong performance of the endowment, borrowing
in combination with fund raising is obviously the only way to have proceeded. It
would appear that as long as the arbitrage is positive, the tax laws remain
favorable, and the university can maintain its current " AAA " credit rating, it
should borrow money for facility construction and improvement instead of
spending its own.
The structure of Yale's debt is both long and short and fixed and floating. As a
result, as noted quite correctly in the self-study, there are two dangers that are
associated with this level and type of borrowing. The first is obviously that of
debt service capacity. Debt service, which is pegged at $57 million in fiscal year
1999 and scheduled to rise to about $70 million in fiscal year 2000, represents a
stream of payments that must be made, regardless of economic circumstance.
The second danger has to do with the fact that some substantiai portion of the
outstanding debt is variable rate, exposing the university to interest rate risk if
rates were to begin to rise. University officials are sensitive to both of these
concerns and have taken the appropriate steps to mitigate the dangers.
Currently, the level of debt is within the parameters established by the major
rating agencies for large universities, and the university is acutely aware of the
long-term fixed commitment that it has made. Moreover, the university has
provided sufficient hedging strategies to reduce the exposure to interest rate risk,
hedging approximately 50 percent of the floating debt, and by fixing the costs of
debt through the use of synthetic market swap transactions in the taxable bond
market.
There are no looming budgetary issues that threaten to undermine the
university's plans for continued academic exceIlencel outstanding student
support, and renewal of its physical facilities. It is indeed unfortunate that so
many of Yale's vast resources need to be devoted to the renewal of its physical
plant, a state of affairs that is primarily attributable to the Yale Corporation. Yet,
the institution has done an outstanding job of taking advantage of the
opportunities that have presented themselves during these robust economic
times. Good financial management, innovative thinking, the willingness to
assume risks, all of which are reflected in the day-to-day management of the
institution and in its long-term plans should enable Yale to achieve the priorities
that it has established for itself.
|
