Social  Sciences  Task  Force  (SSTF)1  Final  Report  

October  1,  2009  

Guiding  Observations  

1. Social  Science  Excellence  Is  Critical  to  Cornell  University’s  Excellence

It  is  highly  unlikely  that  Cornell  will  move  up  in  the  rankings  unless  it  has  strong  social  sciences.  This  insight  led  previous  administrations  to  focus  resources  and  attention  on  the  social  sciences  over  the  past  decade  with  actions  such  as  the  launching  of  the  ISS,  the  creation  of  the  vice  provost  for  social  sciences  position,  and  the  featuring  of  the  social  sciences  in  the  Far  Above  capital  campaign.  The  connection  between  the  social  sciences  and  university  excellence  has  also  been  observed  by  a  number  of  external  observers,  including  the  Social  Science  External  Advisory  Council  (SSEAC),  which  was  chaired  by  then  Northwestern  President  Henry  Bienen.  Arguably,  the  importance  of  a  strong  social  science  portfolio  has  onlyincreased in recent years, given local, national, and international economic crises; massive political and social upheaval in Iraq and Afghanistan; and President Obama’s emphasis on health care reform and other social issues.  

1  Charge  appears  at  the  end  of  the  report  as  Appendix  A.  

1

2. Breadth,  Excellence,  and  Budget  Constraints

Cornell  has  a  large  number  of  social  science  units,  including  more  than  20  departments,  and  more  than  40  centers  and  institutes,  across  nine  colleges  and  schools  (http://www.cornell.edu/socialsciences/academic.cfm).  These  units  collectively  cover  an  extremely  large  number  of  research  and  teaching  areas  in  the  social  sciences,  from  theoretical  work  in  Government  and  Anthropology,  to  extension  work  in  Development  Sociology  and  ILR.  This  tradition  of  breadth,  consistent  with  “any  person,  any  study”,  has  been  a  hallmark  of  Cornell  social  science  for  decades.  

In  addition  to  breadth,  Cornell  social  sciences  have  also  been  marked  by  uneven  quality.  Few  units  can  claim  to  be  top  10  in  their  area.  This  is  particularly  true  in  anthropology,  economics,  political  science,  psychology,  and  sociology;  core  social  science  disciplines  that  are  found  at  nearly  all  elite  colleges  and  universities.    

Cornell  has  taken  steps  to  promote  excellence  in  the  social  sciences  over  the  past  decade.  These  have  included  the  founding  of  the  Institute  for  the  Social  Sciences,  the  seeding  of  the  Cornell  Population  Program,  and  major  hiring  efforts  in  Government,  PAM,  and  select  other  units.  Nevertheless,  the  current  situation  is  that  Cornell  is  good,  but  not  great,  in  most  social  science  areas,  and  many  of  our  units  are  smaller  than  their  competitors.  

In  the  past,  we  might  have  recommended  allocating  additional  resources  to  the  social  sciences  while  maintaining  our  breadth.  In  the  current  economic  climate,  such  recommendations  would  be  not  only  irresponsible,  but  also  completely  unrealistic.  Rather,  we  have  concluded  that  Cornell  must  choose  between  breadth  and  excellence.  We  cannot  use  our  limited  social  science  resources  and  faculty  lines  to  advance  the  goals  of  nine  colleges  and  dozens  of  departments  and  centers,  and  expect  to  be  competitive.    

We  strongly  encourage  the  administration  to  choose  excellence  over  breadth  in  the  social  sciences.  Cornell  must  continue  to  focus  on  theoretical  and  applied  work,  but  the  number  of  focal  areas  must  be  reduced.  If  the  decision  is  made  to  maintain  our  breadth,  while  maintaining  or  reducing  resources,  then  aspirations  for  excellence  in  the  social  sciences  must  be  revised  accordingly.  

2

3. Increased  Efficiencies  Must  Be  Combined  with  Aggressive  Hiring  if  Cornell  Is  to  Excel

Cornell  is  not  alone  in  facing  significant  economic  challenges.  However,  perhaps  because  most  social  scientists  require  smaller  start-­‐up  packages  and  less  infrastructural  investment  than  most  scientists  and  engineers,  many  top  universities  are  hiring  in  the  social  sciences.  A  quick  review  of  online  postings  reveals  anthropology  searches  at  schools  such  as  Wisconsin,  NYU,  Michigan,  Brown,  and  Harvard;  economics  searches  at  such  schools  as  Duke,  Harvard,  MIT,  Princeton,  Chicago,  and  Stanford;  and  sociology  searches  at  such  schools  as  Duke,  Wisconsin,  and  Washington.  

According  to  these  same  sources,  and  the  Cornell  Human  Resources  website  (http://www.ohr.cornell.edu/jobs),  Cornell  does  not  have  any  current  tenure-­‐track  searches  in  the  core  social  science  departments  in  Arts  and  Sciences,  or  the  applied  social  science  departments  in  CALS.  There  are  several  active  searches  in  CHE  and  ILR.  

The  discrepancy  between  the  number  of  active  social  science  searches  at  Cornell  and  peer  universities  suggests  that  our  social  science  rankings  will  fall  unless  our  efforts  to  gain  efficiencies  through  reorganization  are  accompanied  by  aggressive  external  hiring.  All  of  the  savings  generated  by  increased  efficiencies  in  the  social  sciences  cannot  be  used  to  help  solve  the  university’s  budget  challenges.  

4. Current  Concerns,  Future  Excellence

Throughout,  our  focus  is  on  actions  that  will  position  Cornell  to  excel  in  the  social  sciences  over  the  coming  decades.  This  long-­‐run  perspective  differs  from  a  focus  on  what  we  can  do  to  enhance  social  science  excellence  over  the  next  few  years.  It  is  clear  that  one  must  think  about  the  short  run  in  pursuing  long-­‐run  excellence,  but  we  believe  that  an  exclusive  focus  on  the  short  run  is  inconsistent  with  the  transformational  change  that  is  necessary  in  the  social  sciences.  

Although  many  will  be  excited  by  our  focus  on  long-­‐run  excellence,  we  anticipate  that  some  current  faculty,  administrators,  students,  staff,  and  alumni  will  advocate  actions  that  focus  exclusively  on  short-­‐run  goals.  We  encourage  the  administration  to  persist  in  the  face  of  this  opposition,  being  mindful  of  not  only  how  many  people  are  objecting,  but  also  their  levels  of  expertise  and  their  prominence  in  key  areas.  We  also  encourage  the  administration  to  be  mindful  of  the  preferences  of  faculty  we  have  been  unable  to  hire,  students  we  have  not  been  able  to  recruit,  and  alums  we  have  not  been  able  to  convince  to  make  substantial  gifts  to  the  social  sciences.  The  only  way  to  appeal  to  these  aspirational  constituencies  is  to  privilege  their  preferences  over  those  of  some  members  of  the  current  Cornell  community.  As  we  

3

 

all  know,  the  status  quo  has  costs  that  are  invisible  when  attention  is  focused  on  those  who  find  the  current  situation  attractive.  

Data  

In  addition  to  the  perspectives  of  task  force  members,  SSTF  discussions  have  been  informed  by  the  following:  

• Meetings  with  Walter  Cohen  (Arts  and  Sciences  Task  Force),  Barbara  Knuth(CALS  Task  Force),  Kevin  Hallock  (ILR  Task  Force),  and  Alan  Mathios  (CHETask  Force)

• 1996-­‐2010  U.S.  News  rankings  for  social  science  disciplines• 1995  National  Research  Council  rankings  for  social  science  disciplines• FY2009  funding  sources  for  social  science  centers  and  institutes• 2006  and  2007  Social  Science  External  Advisory  Council  reports• 2007  Economics  Ad  Hoc  Committee  report• Annual  reports  and  external  reviews  for  social  science  departments

The  task  force  did  not  engage  broadly  with  faculty,  students,  staff,  or  alumni  as  part  of  its  deliberations.  After  consulting  with  the  Provost,  we  decided  to  be  discrete  about  our  emerging  proposals,  especially  those  proposals  that  would  be  seen  as  controversial  and  transformative,  until  we  had  a  clear  signal  that  the  senior  administration  was  interested  in  giving  them  serious  consideration.  It  will  be  critical  to  discuss  our  ideas  more  broadly  before  any  decisions  are  made.  

Meetings  

The  SSTF  met  on  May  20  and  29;  June  4,  12,  16,  17,  and  24;  July  9  and  22;  August  27;  and  September  18,  23,  and  29.  The  meeting  on  August  27  was  an  all-­‐day  retreat.  In  addition,  the  SSTF  met  in  three  subgroups  during  August  and  September.  

Responses  to  SSTF  Charge    

Below  we  offer  responses  to  the  seven  questions  posed  in  our  charge  (see  Appendix  A):  

1. In  which  social  sciences  areas  must  Cornell  offer  instruction  if  it  is  to  continue  to  bean  elite  undergraduate  institution?  Responses  should  focus  on  disciplines  andareas,  not  departments.

• It  is  important  to  stress  that  we  believe  Cornell  derives  great  strengthfrom  its  position  as  both  a  land  grant  institution  and  an  Ivy  League  school.

4

The  challenge  is  to  find  ways  to  blend  the  theoretical  and  the  applied  in  efficient  and  impactful  ways.  We  believe  that  it  would  be  a  fundamental  error  for  Cornell  to  abandon  its  land  grant  mission  or  Ivy  League  tradition  in  pursuit  of  only  one  of  these  missions.  

• To  be  an  elite  undergraduate  institution,  Cornell  must  offer  instruction  ineconomics,  psychology,  sociology,  political  science,  and  anthropology.  TheSSTF  members  maintain  that  important  as  they  are,  more  specializedsocial  science  units  depend  on,  and  draw  from,  a  strong  core.

2. What  are  Cornell’s  highest-­‐ranked  social  sciences  research  areas?  Which  areasare  making  significant  progress?  Which  areas  are  at  risk  of  significant  declines?

• Note:  Task  force  members  developed  great  rapport  and  trust  with  oneanother,  but  it  was  nevertheless  difficult  to  reach  consensus  on  which  areasare  at  risk  of  serious  decline,  or  have  already  declined.  The  lack  of  attentionto  this  question  in  the  report  reflects  group  process  issues,  not  an  inabilityfor  individuals  to  identify  weak  or  declining  programs.  The  SSTFrecommends  that  the  Provost’s  Office  and  colleges  work  together  to  identifyweaker  programs  and  then  decide  what  actions  will  best  position  Cornellfor  long-­run  excellence.  Candidates  for  closure  include  those  units  that  aredeemed  by  the  Provost  and  deans  to  be  weak  now,  to  show  little  promise  forsignificant  improvement  in  the  long  run,  and  to  not  be  essential  to  theuniversity’s  mission.  Closures  will  have  the  greatest  impact  on  the  socialsciences  if  there  is  the  flexibility  to  redistribute  lines  across  colleges.

• The  social  sciences  at  Cornell  are  good  but  not  great.  The  core  socialsciences  are  all  ranked  in  the  mid-­‐teens,  and  none  stand  out  as  being  insignificantly  better  shape  than  the  others.

• We  clearly  have  pockets  of  excellence  in  the  social  sciences  where  top-­‐tencaliber  sub-­‐fields  exist  (e.g.,  labor  economics,  comparative  politics,international  development),  even  if  they  are  located  in  larger  units  ordisciplines  that  are  not  ranked  as  well.  This  is  where  the  small  size  of  ourcore  units  really  hurts  us;  we  have  pockets  of  excellence  but  also  largegaps  that  pull  down  overall  rankings.  For  those  disciplines  that  aredistributed  across  the  university,  such  as  economics,  psychology,  andsociology,  restructuring  and  mergers  offer  the  promise  of  making  betteruse  of  social  science  resources  that  are  currently  spread  across  thecampus.

• All  of  the  Cornell  social  science  departments  in  Arts  and  Sciences,  andmany  in  other  colleges,  are  too  small  to  be  ranked  highly  (e.g.,  in  the  topten);  size  affects  their  visibility  nationally  and  internationally.  Theproblems  of  size  are  compounded  by  college  and  department  tastes  forspecialization  in  some  cases,  and  by  fragmentation  across  the  university  –especially  in  economics,  psychology,  and  sociology.

5

 

• Economics  is  poised  to  make  significant  strides  thanks  torecommendations  in  the  recent  ad  hoc  committee  report,  the  founding  ofthe  IAEC,  and  other  efforts  to  create  linkages  among  economists  acrossdepartments  and  colleges.  Unfortunately,  the  economics  initiative  hasstalled  because  the  Economics  Department  has  not  voted  on  the  slate  ofjoint  appointments  proposed  by  a  cross-­‐campus  committee,  and  theadministration  has  not  been  able  to  identify  resources  to  support  the  sixproposed  endowed  professorships.  We  risk  a  dangerous  further  erosionof  faculty  morale  across  economics  units.

• Sociology  has  already  implemented  structural  changes  similar  to  thoseproposed  in  the  economics  initiative  (e.g.,  extensive  joint  appointments,extra-­‐departmental  representation  on  senior  searches),  but  thesechanges  have  failed  to  offset  the  loss  of  Arts  and  Sciences  lines  and  therapid  expansion  of  competitors’  core  sociology  departments.  It  isimportant  to  follow  through  on  these  efforts  with  adequate  resources.

• We  have  devoted  significant  time  to  discussing  AEM.  This  unit  is  acombination  of  applied  economics-­‐-­‐with  an  established  graduateprogram,  and  an  undergraduate  business  program,  and  so  is  beingdiscussed  by  the  Management  Sciences  Task  Force  and  the  SSTF.  We  areconcerned  that  given  the  heterogeneity  of  AEM,  and  the  needs  of  theundergraduate  business  program,  important  areas  such  as  developmenteconomics,  agricultural  economics,  and  environmental  economics  mightnot  receive  sufficient  attention.

3. In  which  social  sciences  areas  should  Cornell  focus  new  investments  andminimize  budget  reductions?

• The  core  social  sciences  must  be  protected  and  ideally  strengthened.    Thedispersed  nature  of  the  social  sciences  at  Cornell  has  carried  somebenefits,  but  a  major  disadvantage  is  that  the  core  disciplines  havereceived  insufficient  attention.    The  core  departments  are  all  significantlysmaller  than  their  respective  departments  at  peer  universities,  and  theyare  even  smaller  yet  when  compared  to  top-­‐ten  departments  in  theirrespective  fields.    Cornell’s  strengths  in  the  applied  social  sciences  willlikely  benefit  from  having  more  strength  in  the  core  disciplines.

• In  addition  to  the  core  social  sciences,  it  will  also  be  important  to  invest  inareas  of  policy  relevance  (e.g.  environment,  energy,  health  care,  socialsecurity,  unemployment/underemployment,  education,  poverty),  and  tofoster  interdisciplinary  collaborations.

6

 

4. What  changes  in  the  Graduate  School,  the  graduate  field  system,  and  the  list  ofcurrent  graduate  fields  would  benefit  the  social  sciences?

• Opinions  about  the  field  system  vary  significantly  across  SSTF  members.Support  for  the  field  system  is  greatest  among  SSTF  members  from  fieldsthat  are  concentrated  in  a  small  number  of  departments  (e.g.,Government,  Anthropology).  In  fields  that  cross  a  large  number  ofdepartments,  faculty  tend  to  find  that  the  field  system  does  notcompensate  for  having  a  large  number  of  social  science  units  withoverlapping  missions.  We  recommend  addressing  the  underlyingstructural  problems  in  the  social  sciences,  which  are  problems  that  thefield  system  is  not  intended  to,  and  cannot,  solve.

• At  the  same  time,  many  of  our  recommendations  will  require  that  theadministration  revisit  the  allocation  of  graduate  student  funding  acrosssocial  science  units.  For  example,  if  faculty  lines  are  moved  from  onedepartment  to  another,  some  number  of  graduate  student  fundingpackages  should  also  move  in  order  to  maintain  Cornell’s  competivenessin  recruiting  and  retaining  top  faculty.

5. How  critical  are  cross-­‐college  infrastructure  units  (e.g.,  ISS,  CISER,  SurveyResearch  Center,  BLCC)  to  social  sciences  research?  Are  there  criticalinfrastructure  needs,  such  as  space  or  scholarly  resources?

• Contemporary  social  scientists  employ  a  wide  range  of  methodologicalapproaches.  At  one  extreme  are  social  scientists  that  work  alone,  and  thatneed  little  more  than  paper,  pencils,  and  basic  computers  to  conduct  theirresearch.  At  the  other  extreme  are  social  scientists  that  require  externalfunding  and  expensive  data  collection  and  data  analysis  tools  to  conducttheir  work.  This  latter  group  tends  to  work  collaboratively  in  teamsconsisting  of  faculty,  postdoctoral  fellows,  and  undergraduate  andgraduate  students.  If  Cornell  is  to  support  excellence  in  the  socialsciences,  it  will  be  critical  to  provide  access  to  a  diverse  range  of  excellentand  affordable  infrastructure  support  services.

• Social  science  infrastructure  units  were  examined  in  depth  by  a  SSTFsubgroup  (see  Appendix  B).  There  is  strong  support  for  merging  ISS,CISER,  SRI,  and  BLCC  organizationally,  and  locating  them  in  shared  space.There  is  also  interest  in  developing  close  ties  between  this  newconsolidated  social  science  infrastructure  unit  and  the  Cornell  StatisticalConsulting  Unit  (CSCU).  These  organizational  and  physical  moves  willenhance  Cornell’s  support  of  the  social  sciences,  and  produce  modest  costsavings.

• The  SSTF  encourages  the  administration  to  examine  the  large  number  ofcenters  that  exist  within  colleges,  and  to  consolidate  centers  and  supportservices  where  possible.

7

 

6. Are  there  social  sciences  units  that  should  be  merged?  Are  there  social  sciencescenters,  programs,  fields,  or  departments  that  should  be  closed?  What  would  thecosts  and  benefits  of  these  changes  be?  What  roles  should  faculty,administrators,  students,  and  alumni  play  in  identifying  and  implementingmergers  and  closings?

• Two  subgroups  were  charged  with  taking  a  detailed  look  at  aspects  of  thisquestion.  One  subgroup  proposed  that  Cornell  transform  existing  unitsinto  a  new  School  of  Public  Policy  (Appendix  C).  A  second  subgroupexplored  several  approaches  to  merging  units  (Appendix  D).

• The  full  SSTF  supports  further  consideration  of  creating  a  School  of  PublicPolicy.  In  order  to  create  this  new  school,  it  would  likely  be  necessary  totransform  one  or  more  current  schools  or  colleges.  SSTF  members  had  arange  of  opinions  about  which  colleges  should  be  transformed  to  makeroom  for  a  School  of  Public  Policy.  The  most  obvious  candidate  is  CHE,given  its  existing  strength  in  public  policy  and  the  small  number  ofcolleges  of  human  ecology  remaining  at  top  colleges  and  universities.Senior  administrators  have  the  critical  information  about  college  plansand  constituency  relationships  that  are  required  to  make  these  decisions.

• Final  decisions  about  creating  a  policy  school  must  come  from  theprovost  and  president,  after  a  period  of  broad  consultation.  It  will  beimportant  to  focus  on  the  financial  viability  of  the  proposed  school,  itsrelationship  to  current  colleges  and  departments,  and  how  creating  apolicy  school  will  affect  the  resources  available  for  core  social  sciencedepartments  over  the  coming  years.

• The  merger  subgroup  created  an  instructive  guide  that  presents  thedetails,  advantages,  and  disadvantages  of  several  approaches  to  mergingunits  (see  Appendix  D).

(1) Coordinating  Committee:    Individual  units  retain  their  currentautonomy,  but  a  Coordinating  Committee  with  representation  fromeach  unit  is  charged  with  overseeing  the  full  disciplinary  community.

(2) Super-­Department:    A  large  department  is  “shared”  by  multiplecolleges.  It  is  funded  and  administered  by  multiple  colleges  and  servesmultiple  colleges,  but  operates  as  a  single  unit.

(3) Absorption:    We  focus  on  one  core  department,  and  absorb  linesfrom  other  units  into  this  department.

(4) Extensive  Joint  Appointments:    We  create  links  between  componentunits  via  having  many  people  with  joint  appointments.

8

 

• Both  the  merger  subgroup  and  the  full  SSTF  devoted  significant  effort  todeveloping  a  proposal  for  specific  mergers.  We  made  significant  progressin  identifying  possible  mergers  (e.g.,  economics  super-­‐department,psychology  coordinating  committee,  sociology  absorption  of  selectfaculty),  but  also  in  identifying  complex  constraints  (e.g.,  desire  tominimize  risks  to  one’s  own  unit,  difficulty  of  discussing  qualitydifferences  across  units,  need  to  transform  some  colleges’  missions  withrespect  to  the  social  sciences).  Our  deliberations  can  inform  therecommendations  that  eventually  emerge  from  the  planning  process,  butit  is  clear  that  these  recommendations  must  result  from  consultation  witha  broader  group  of  faculty,  students,  staff,  and  alumni.  It  is  also  clear  thatthe  eventual  decisions  must  be  made  by  university  leadership—a  groupthat  is  charged  with  advancing  the  mission  of  the  university,  not  anyparticular  department  or  college.

• Additional  commentso The  fact  that  there  are  multiple  versions  of  some  disciplines  at

Cornell  may  be  a  luxury  (or  impediment)  that  we  can  no  longerafford.

o Given  budget  constraints,  it  is  unlikely  that  Cornell  will  becomestronger  in  the  social  sciences  unless  the  number  of  socialscience  departments  and  colleges  declines.

o The  current  financial  problems  are  a  real  opportunity  to  makesignificant  changes  that  should  have  been  made  long  ago.

o Each  unit  exists  in  the  context  of  a  college  mission.  There  isoften  tension  between  strategies  that  maximize  college  goalsand  those  that  enhance  strength  across  the  university.  Ifdecisions  are  left  to  the  deans,  and  not  heavily  influenced  bythe  president  and  provost,  the  current  fragmentation  ofresources  will  continue.

o There  is  duplication  of  course  offerings  across  units.  Budgetconstraints  require  greater  coordination.

o If  Cornell  is  to  maximize  the  gains  that  come  from  closing  adepartment,  there  must  be  flexibility  as  to  how  the  lines  of  thedefunct  department  are  redistributed.  It  may  be  in  our  bestinterest  to  redistribute  lines  across  college  or  disciplinaryboundaries.  Any  redistribution  has  to  be  done  with  a  purposeand  with  the  expectation  of  significant  impact.

9

7. What  other  opportunities  exist  for  budget  reductions  and  revenueenhancements  in  the  social  sciences  that  will  not  cause  undue  harm  to  the  coremissions  of  research,  teaching,  and  outreach?

• Periodic  review  of  post-­‐tenure  faculty• Consider  additional  terminal  professional  masters  programs  in  such

areas  as  environment,  energy,  and  sustainable  development

Recommendations  

1. Pursue  long-­‐run  excellence  in  the  social  sciences.

2. Reduce  the  breadth  of  Cornell  social  sciences  so  that  resources  can  befocused  on  areas  of  excellence.  This  will  require  strategic  mergers  of  existingunits  and  a  reconceptualization  of  some  department  and  college  missions.

3. The  Provost’s  Office  and  colleges  must  work  together  to  identify  weakerprograms  and  to  then  decide  what  actions  will  best  position  Cornell  for  long-­‐run  excellence.

4. Merge  social  science  infrastructure  units  organizationally,  programmatically,and  physically  to  increase  efficiencies  and  effectiveness.

5. Continue  to  explore  options  for  transforming  an  existing  college  or  collegesinto  a  School  of  Public  Policy.

6. Over  the  past  few  years,  the  Social  Science  External  Advisory  Council(SSEAC)  has  provided  a  critical,  informed,  external  perspective  on  the  socialsciences  across  Cornell.  It  will  be  important  to  seek  their  input  before  andafter  any  significant  changes  are  made.

10

CONFIDENTIAL  

Appendix  A.  Social  Sciences  Task  Force  Charge  

Cornell  University  must  address  a  $215  M  operating  budget  deficit  on  the  Ithaca  campus.  This  will  require  a  substantial  correction—between  15  and  18  percent  of  the  unrestricted  budget,  with  larger  corrections  likely  among  administrative  units  (see  www.cornell.edu/budget  for  more  on  the  budget  challenge  and  responses).    

Solving  this  budget  challenge  will  require  unprecedented  coordination  across  campus  constituencies,  and  a  process  that  imbues  budget  reduction  and  revenue  enhancement  strategies  with  credibility.  Major  decisions  will  need  to  be  made  well  before  the  end  of  the  Fall  2009  semester,  so  that  changes  can  be  implemented  beginning  in  fiscal  year  2011.  

Given  the  magnitude  of  the  challenge,  and  the  diffusion  of  the  social  sciences  across  the  Ithaca  campus2,  Provost  Kent  Fuchs  is  establishing  a  social  sciences  planning  task  force  to  make  recommendations  about  social  sciences  priorities,  and  opportunities  for  cost  savings  and  revenue  enhancements.  The  recommendations  of  this  task  force  will  be  considered  alongside  recommendations  from  college-­‐based  task  forces  (see  attached  charge  for  colleges  and  schools).  

The  task  force  should  focus  on  the  following  questions:  

1. In  which  social  sciences  areas  must  Cornell  offer  instruction  if  it  is  tocontinue  to  be  an  elite  undergraduate  institution?  Responses  should  focus  ondisciplines  and  areas,  not  departments.

2. What  are  Cornell’s  highest-­‐ranked  social  sciences  research  areas?  Whichareas  are  making  significant  progress?  Which  areas  are  at  risk  of  significantdeclines?

3. In  which  social  sciences  areas  should  Cornell  focus  new  investments  andminimize  budget  reductions?

4. What  changes  in  the  Graduate  School,  the  graduate  field  system,  and  the  listof  current  graduate  fields  would  benefit  the  social  sciences?

5. How  critical  are  cross-­‐college  infrastructure  units  (e.g.,  ISS,  CISER,  SurveyResearch  Center,  BLCC)  to  social  sciences  research?  Are  there  criticalinfrastructure  needs,  such  as  space  or  scholarly  resources?

6. Are  there  social  sciences  units  that  should  be  merged?  Are  there  socialsciences  centers,  programs,  fields,  or  departments  that  should  be  closed?What  would  the  costs  and  benefits  of  these  changes  be?  What  roles  should

2  The  social  sciences  are  a  substantial  component  of  the  following  colleges  and  schools:  AAP,  Arts  &  Sciences,  CALS,  ILR,  Human  Ecology,  JGSM,  Hotel,  Law.  

A-1

 

faculty,  administrators,  students,  and  alumni  play  in  identifying  and  implementing  mergers  and  closings?  

7. What  other  opportunities  exist  for  budget  reductions  and  revenueenhancements  in  the  social  sciences  that  will  not  cause  undue  harm  to  thecore  missions  of  research,  teaching,  and  outreach?

Throughout,  consideration  should  be  given  to  how  planning  decisions  will  be  implemented,  what  difficulties  might  arise,  and  what  resources  and  support  will  be  necessary  to  achieve  change.    

It  will  be  critical  that  the  task  force  structure  its  work  in  a  way  that  allows  for  input  from,  consultation  with,  or  participation  by,  relevant  constituencies.  This  need  for  transparency  must  be  balanced  against  the  need  to  be  expeditious,  efficient,  and  capable  of  making  hard  decisions.    It  is  inevitable  that  some  recommendations  will  be  unpopular  with  some  constituencies,  but  if  Cornell  is  to  enhance  its  prominence  in  the  social  sciences,  this  task  force  cannot  allow  a  desire  to  avoid  conflict  deter  it  from  making  bold  recommendations.  

An  initial  report  is  due  to  Provost  Fuchs  by  July  1,  2009.  The  final  report  is  due  by  October  1,  2009.  

A-2

 

Appendix  B.  Sub-­Committee  on  Social  Science  Infrastructure  Units  

Our  sub-­‐committee  was  charged  with  the  task  of  assessing  the  potential  integration  of  core  social  science  research  units  like  the  Institute  for  the  Social  Sciences  (ISS),  the  Survey  Research  Institute  (SRI),  the  Cornell  Institute  for  Social  and  Economic  Research  (CISER),  and  the  Bronfenbrenner  Life  Course  Center  (BLCC).  As  currently  configured,  these  are  separate  and  independent  units  in  their  administration,  budgeting,  and  operations.3    Between  them,  they  provide  a  broad  range  of  infrastructural  support  services  for  social  science  research  by  both  students  and  faculty,  from  grant  writing  and  administration  to  data  gathering,  computing,  statistical  analysis,  data  archiving,  training  workshops,  and  the  fostering  of  collaborative  ventures.      

For  the  most  part,  these  services  are  complementary  rather  than  duplicative;  that  is,  the  units  have  worked  out  a  general  division  of  labor  based  on  their  different  specializations  and  functional  missions.  Nevertheless,  after  studying  the  activities  of  these  units  and  meeting  with  their  respective  directors,  our  sub-­‐committee  believes  the  current  configuration  tends  to  fragment  and  disperse  research  activities  in  ways  that  are  detrimental  to  the  development  of  the  social  sciences  at  Cornell.  This  fragmentation  leads  to  a  number  of  specific  problems:  

3SRI,  CISER,  and  ISS  all  report  directly  to  the  Vice-­‐Provost  for  the  Social  Sciences.    The  SRI  conducts  survey  research  under  cost-­‐recovery  contracts  with  both  Cornell-­‐based  and  external  clients.    CISER  receives  financial  support  from  the  Provost,  colleges,  and  users,  and  provides  a  broad  range  of  services,  including  assistance  with  computing,  data  analysis,  data  archiving,  and  training  workshops.  CISER  and  SRI  are  physically  located  in  the  same  off-­‐campus  building  near  the  East  Hill  Plaza,  but  they  remain  separate  units.  The  ISS  is  funded  by  the  Vice-­‐  Provost’s  office  and  located  in  Myron  Taylor  Hall.  It  provides  financial  support  for  individual  faculty  research  projects,  as  well  as  for  three-­‐year  interdisciplinary  theme  projects.  The  BLCC,  on  the  other  hand,  provides  support  for  research  on  human  development  and  life  course  issues  university-­‐wide,  but  it  is  part  of  the  College  of  Human  Ecology  and  reports  to  the  Dean  of  the  college.    The  BLCC  helps  fund  faculty  research,  prepare  grant  proposals,  administer  grants,  and  organize  data  workshops.    Included  within  the  BLCC  are  the  Cornell  Population  Program  (CPP),  the  Cornell  Institute  for  Translational  Research  on  Aging  (CITRA),  the  Program  on  Applied  Demographics  (PAD),  and  the  Gerontology  Certificate  Program.  

B-1

 

Faculty  and  students  are  often  unfamiliar  with  the  specific  academic  and  training  missions  as  well  as  the  staff  and  technical  research  services  (e.g.,  computing)  offered  by  these  units    

$   Too  few  well-­‐trained  staff  that  can  handle  social  science  grants  and  contracts,  both  pre-­‐  and  post-­‐award,  from  NIH  and  other  governmental  agencies        

$   The  separate  units  do  not  provide  the  “critical  mass”  that  is  needed  to  develop  advanced  technical  capabilities  (for  example,  with  GIS),  to  respond  quickly  to  major  national  funding  opportunities,  or  to  augment  Cornell’s  national  visibility  and  its  ability  to  recruit  top  faculty  and  students  in  the  social  sciences    

$   Large  research  projects  may  have  to  coordinate  across  multiple  units  or  sites,  and  opportunities  for  synergistic  collaboration  are  difficult  to  exploit  

$   Social  scientists  in  different  colleges  find  it  difficult  to  collaborate  on  multi-­‐investigator  projects  because  of  different  formulae  for  allocating  credit  and  indirect  costs  among  academic  units  

$   Some  duplication  of  administrative  responsibilities  undoubtedly  exists,  and  administrative  economies  of  scale  are  not  being  exploited  

$   The  separate  physical  locations  of  these  units,  and  in  particular  the  off-­‐campus  location  of  CISER  and  (perhaps  to  a  lesser  extent)  SRI,  impede  collaboration  across  the  units  and  with  users    

Given  these  problems,  we  believe  there  is  a  strong  case  for  integrating  these  units  (and  perhaps  others  on  campus)  more  effectively.    Such  integration  could  create  a  more  coherent,  efficient,  and  nationally-­‐visible  research  center  in  the  social  sciences–  one  that  could  provide  a  critical  mass,  develop  new  technical  capabilities,  streamline  administration,  and  foster  collaboration  and  coordination  among  social  scientists  and  professional-­‐technical  staff.      

Within  the  task  force,  there  is  considerable  support  and  enthusiasm  for  some  consolidation  of  the  relevant  units,  although  we  take  note  of  several  concerns  as  well.  In  particular,  there  are  concerns  about  (1)  the  existence  of  distinct  organizational  sub-­‐cultures  and  how  they  would  work  together  under  a  more  integrated  structure;  (2)  the  implications  of  integration  for  the  administrative  and  operational  autonomy  of  the  different  units;  (3)  implications  for  the  allocation  of  IDCs  among  colleges  and  departments  when  research  grants  are  administrated  by  central  administration  rather  than  specific  colleges  or  college-­‐based  centers  (such  as  BLCC);  and  (4)  the  budgetary  and  cost-­‐sharing  implications  of  integrating  units  

B-2

 

with  quite  different  internal  and  external  funding  sources,  academic  and  training  missions,    entrepreneurial  and  disciplinary  traditions,  and  fiscal  balances  (e.g.,  “soft-­‐money”  operations,  such  as  SRI).  Additionally,  we  note  that  there  is  opposition  within  the  SRI  to  a  physical  relocation  of  all  its  operations  back  to  campus,  given  the  institute’s  space  needs,  its  staffing  requirements,  and  the  parking  and  logistical  challenges  encountered  in  serving  their  on-­‐  and  off-­‐campus  clientele.    This  might  be  resolved  by  giving  the  SRI  office  space  for  client  interaction  on-­‐campus  —  perhaps  within  a  larger  social  science  research  center  —  while  maintaining  many  of  its  survey  operations  in  an  off-­‐campus  facility.    

These  concerns  help  to  crystallize  several  key  decisions  that  would  have  to  be  made  in  any  process  of  integrating  these  different  units.  We  believe  three  such  decisions  stand  out:  

$   First,  what  would  a  more  integrated  administrative  structure  look  like?    One  option  is  to  simply  maintain  the  existing  units  and  then  jointly  locate  them  under  a  more  centralized  administrative  structure  (perhaps  with  the  directors  of  the  different  units  serving  on  a  centralized  executive  committee).  A  second  option  might  involve  combining  two  or  more  of  these  separate  units  within  a  more  centralized,  overarching  structure  with  a  single  director.    For  example,  the  ISS  and  BLCC  could  be  merged  to  form  a  new  administrative  hub  (e.g.,  on  grants  and  contracts)  for  each  of  the  other  centers  (e.g.,  this  might  be  renamed  the  Bronfenbrenner  Institute  for  the  Social  Sciences  or  some  other  appropriate  name).    A  third,  and  more  radical,  option  would  be  to  dissolve  the  existing  units  and  relocate  their  staff,  expertise,  and  service  functions  within  a  new  and  more  comprehensive,  multi-­‐purpose  institute  that  would  provide  basic  infrastructure  for  social  science  research  across  the  university.  Budgets  would  be  combined  while  providing  greater  flexibility  to  reallocate  resources  across  units  as  priorities  change  or  in  response  to  new  external  funding  opportunities.    

Although  our  subcommittee  is  not  prepared  to  recommend  one  of  these  options  over  the  others,  it  is  important  to  identify  the  full  range  of  restructuring  possibilities.    Each  option  provides  economies  of  scale  through  these  types  of  restructuring  that  would  allow  for  some  cost-­‐cutting  and  administrative  streamlining.  One  question,  however,  is  whether  the  various  colleges  or  departments  would    “buy  into”  a  new  arrangement  if,  for  example,  the  BLCC  served  a  campus-­‐wide  rather  than  college-­‐wide  clientele  (e.g.,  would  BLCC  continue  to  receive  support  from  CHE  if  grants  are  submitted  through  a  reconfigured  campus-­‐wide  social  science  center)?      

B-3

Another  question  involves  the  diversified  mission  and  activities  of  the  BLCC.    The  BLCC  provides  basic  infrastructural  research  services  (especially  in  grant  administration)  that  could  be  used  by  scholars  in  any  number  of  different  areas,  much  like  the  ISS,  CISER,  and  SRI.    But  BLCC’s  mission  also  is  focused  on  substantive  concerns,  such  as  human  development  over  the  life  course,  aging,  and  demographic  issues.    A  decision  must  be  made,  then,  as  to  whether  a  new,  larger  research  institute  would  provide  only  infrastructural  support  services—in  which  case  the  substantive,  life  course  work  of  the  BLCC  might  remain  located  elsewhere.    Or,  alternatively,  a  newly-­‐configured  social  science  institute  might  provide  infrastructural  services  and  also  promote  substantive  kinds  of  work.    In  this  case,  all  of  the  BLCC  and  possibly  other  existing  centers  might  be  incorporated  within  a  larger  institute,  especially  if  their  faculty  are  drawn  from  different  departments  across  campus  and  if  college  boundaries  constrain  collaboration  on  multi-­‐investigator  or  multidisciplinary  projects.  

$   Second,  what  (if  any)  type  of  fiscal  integration  would  accompany  an  administrative  restructuring?  Would  college  administrators  view  a  newly-­‐centralized  social  science  center  as  threatening  –  as  cannibalizing  their  faculty  and  resources  (e.g.,  IDCs)?    Would  the  different  centers  pool  their  resources,  retain  control  over  their  separate  funding  streams,  and/or  cost-­‐share  on  physical  and  staff  resources?    This  is  a  sensitive  issue,  as  the  SRI  currently  generates  a  fiscal  surplus  and  does  not  receive  university  funding,  whereas  the  other  units  all  rely  on  various  types  of  university  support.    We  note,  however,  that  the  SRI’s  surplus  is  currently  under  the  control  of  the  Vice  Provost’s  office,  so  some  sort  of  centralized  pooling  and  strategic  targeting  of  resources  would  not  represent  a  dramatic  change  from  the  status  quo.  We  believe  mechanisms  should  be  found  to  rationalize  the  funding  of  social  science  research  through  cost-­‐sharing  arrangements  and  the  strategic  use  of  surpluses  to  incubate  diverse  types  of  research  activities.  

$   Third,  is  it  possible  –  and  desirable  –  to  relocate  these  units  to  the  same  physical  space?    The  subcommittee  believes  that  physical  proximity  among  faculty,  students,  and  professional  staff  is  critical  for  collaboration  among  some  groups  of  social  scientists  who  work  in  multi-­‐disciplinary  collaborative  teams  (e.g.,  demographers,  health  economists).        There  are  clear  advantages  for  faculty  and  graduate  students  to  have  a  centralized  location  that  serves  as  a  hub  for  the  different  dimensions  of  the  research  process  that  are  currently  supported  separately  by  the  BLCC,  SRI,  ISS,  and  CISER.  An  ISS  theme  project  team,  for  example,  could  be  physically  located  in  close  proximity  to  professional  staff  at  the  BLCC  that  specialize  in  grant  writing  and  

B-4

 

administration,  as  well  as  specialists  in  survey  research  and  data  management  at  SRI  and  CISER,  respectively.    This  could  provide  an  impetus  for  various  types  of  coordination  in  training  and  conducting  research.    CISER  is  anxious  to  be  closer  to  its  users  on  campus,  and  it  believes  some  of  the  more  sensitive  data  that  it  manages  would  be  more  secure  at  on  on-­‐campus  facility.    Even  if  SRI  were  to  keep  some  of  its  survey  operations  off-­‐campus,  the  institute’s  ability  to  work  with  faculty  and  graduate  student  clients  would  be  enhanced  by  an  on-­‐campus  presence  in  close  proximity  to  these  other  social  science  units.  Overall,  we  believe  the  potential  gains  of  locating  these  various  units  together  on  campus  are  substantial.  

In  conclusion,  our  primary  recommendation  is  that  the  ISS,  BLCC,  SRI,  and  CISER  be  brought  together  under  a  more  integrated  administrative  structure,  in  close  physical  proximity  to  one  another.  We  believe  several  different  scenarios  for  achieving  this  integration  are  potentially  viable.  All  would  provide  cost-­‐savings  while  improving  upon  the  existing  fragmentation  and  dispersion  of  basic  research  services  at  Cornell.  

B-5

 

Appendix  C.  Public  Policy  at  Cornell  University  

EXECUTIVE  SUMMARY  

Cornell  should  create  a  School  of  Public  Policy.    This  new  School  should  immediately  embrace  the  goal  of  being  a  top  ten  public  policy  program  within  10  years.  The  creation  of  this  School  would  increase  the  visibility,  quality,  and  depth  of  social  science  faculty  at  Cornell  by  providing  a  vibrant  common  research  environment  for  the  wide  variety  of  social  scientists  who  share  public  policy  research  and  teaching  interests.    Simply  gathering  the  existing  scholars  at  Cornell  under  the  auspices  of  a  new  School  of  Public  Policy  would  itself  be  a  bold,  highly  visible  undertaking.    It  would  create  a  program  that  would  be  immediately  ranked  near  the  top  ten  among  public  policy  programs,  even  without  attracting  more  social  scientists  to  Cornell.    Modest  growth  would  make  a  climb  into  the  top  ten  a  realistic  goal.  

The  School  would  also  increase  the  quality  of  public  policy  teaching  programs  across  Cornell.    The  School  should  have  the  capacity  to  offer  an  undergraduate  program  in  public  policy,  train  students  at  a  graduate  level  with  both  terminal  Masters  and  PhD  programs,  and  offer  mid-­‐career  degree  programs  for  professionals.    The  School  would  help  redefine  Cornell’s  land  grant  mission  by  creating  an  institution  dedicated  to  making  contributions  to  key  public-­‐policy  debates  at  state,  national,  and  international  levels  through  its  scholarship  and  its  training  of  tomorrow’s  leaders.  

To  accomplish  these  goals,  the  committee  suggests  that  the  Policy  Analysis  and  Management  (PAM)  department  become  the  core  faculty  lines  (29)  forming  the  new  School,  with  an  addition  of  10  new  lines  (described  below)  making  up  a  ‘full-­‐service’  public  policy  program.  The  School  should  have  three  basic  elements.    First,  it  must  have  its  own  independent  identity  with  independent  authority  and  resources  to  encourage  and  enhance  externally  funded  research  programs  in  public  policy.    Second,  it  must  have  a  sufficient  number  of  dedicated  faculty  lines  to  support  its  core  teaching  and  research  programs;  a  School  of  less  than  35-­‐40  lines  would  not  be  sufficient  to  create  visibility,  maintain  the  needed  core  teaching  programs,  and  promote  the  goals  outlined  above.    Third,  the  School  should  be  strongly  connected  to  core  and  applied  social  science  departments  across  Cornell  through  joint  hires,  joint  appointments,  and  affiliated  faculty.    

These  elements  can  be  accomplished  by  structuring  the  School  with  three  levels  of  faculty  affiliation:    1)  a  core  group  of  35-­‐40  faculty  fully  appointed  in  the  School;  2)  a  second  level  of  jointly  appointed  faculty;  3)  a  third  level  of  affiliated  scholars  at  the  University.    The  structure  could  be  accomplished  now  with  existing  faculty  at  Cornell  and  a  commitment  to  hire  in  strategic  areas  so  as  to  cover  those  few  areas  that  are  essential  to  a  public  policy  school,  and  are  not  now  represented  at  Cornell.  

C-1

 

The  creation  of  a  new  School  of  Public  Policy  through  restructuring  within  Cornell,  moderate  new  investment,  and  fundraising,  would  demonstrate  an  energy  and  commitment  to  social  sciences  at  Cornell  that  would  enhance  Cornell’s  ability  to  significantly  increase  the  profile  of  its  social  science  units.  This  move  would  be  all  the  more  significant  because  it  would  come  at  a  time  when  top  universities  are  contemplating  substantial  cutbacks  in  order  to  balance  their  budgets.  

INTRODUCTION  

This  report  recommends  the  creation  of  a  new  School  of  Public  Policy  at  Cornell.    We  address  why  we  are  making  this  recommendation,  the  goals  of  this  new  School,  and  the  elements  that  would  allow  the  School  to  achieve  its  research,  teaching,  and  outreach/extension  missions.    We  are  mindful  of  the  exceptional  budgetary  constraints  facing  Cornell.    We  are  also  mindful  of  concerns  that  the  social  sciences  at  Cornell  suffer  from  some  measure  of  fragmentation.    The  core  of  the  recommendation,  however,  is  consolidation  of  Cornell's  existing  strength  in  the  social  sciences  in  the  area  of  public  policy.    Cornell  already  effectively  possesses  a  core  group  of  faculty  working  in  public  policy  which,  if  gathered  and  constituted  as  a  public  policy  school,  would  already  constitute  a  highly  ranked  program.      

We  believe  that  the  creation  of  this  School,  particularly  at  the  moment  when  our  peer  institutions  are  also  facing  cutbacks,  would  signal  that  Cornell  remains  committed  to  the  goal  of  excellence  in  its  social  sciences.    Cornell  currently  stands  nearly  alone  among  our  peer  institutions  in  lacking  a  School  of  Public  Policy.    This  is  a  startling  fact,  especially  for  New  York  State’s  land-­‐grant  college,  as  the  core  of  public  policy  consists  of  bringing  social  science  research  to  bear  on  problems  and  issues  being  dealt  with  by  policy  makers  and  the  community.    Remedying  this  omission  would  bring  favorable  attention  to  Cornell  during  these  difficult  times.      

A. Why  a  Public  Policy  School/Program  at  Cornell?

The  subcommittee  believes  that  the  creation  of  a  School  of  Public  Policy  isnot  only  long  overdue  at  Cornell  University,  but  at  this  point  in  Cornell’s  history  such  a  move  could  significantly  enhance  the  mission  and  visibility  of  the  Social  Sciences,  especially  during  these  austere  budgetary  times  and  in  a  political  environment  in  which  major  public  policy  challenges  will  need  to  be  addressed  (e.g.  health  care  reform,  alternative  energy  reforms,  climate  change  legislation,  Social  Security  reform).    The  subcommittee  believes  that  the  establishment  of  a  School  of  Public  Policy  at  Cornell  will  increase  the  visibility,  quality,  and  depth  of  social  science  faculty,  and  increase  the  quality  of  public  policy  research  and  teaching  programs  at  Cornell.  These  changes  will  have  the  greatest  impact  on  applied  social  science  units,  but  they  will  also  have  indirect  positive  effects  on  select  core  social  science  departments.  The  key  will  be  accomplishing  the  following  three  goals:  

C-2

 

1) Consolidation.    The  School  will  provide  a  common  research  and  teachingenvironment  for  a  wide  range  of  social  scientists  who  share  research  andteaching  interests  in  public  policy,  but  who  are  currently  appointed  in  unitsacross  the  campus.

2) Strengthen  the  core  disciplines.  By  attracting  outstanding  policy-­‐focusedscholars  who  maintain  high  profiles  in  their  core  disciplines,  the  School  willenable  core  departments  to  recruit  and  retain  faculty  who  will  strengthen  theirdepartments,  and  who  would  not  otherwise  be  interested  in  Cornell.  The  same  istrue  at  the  Ph.D.  student  level,  where  increasing  numbers  of  excellent  studentsare  attracted  to  universities  that  allow  for  a  joint  degree  in  a  discipline  andpublic  policy.

3) Contribute  to  Cornell’s  land  grant  mission.  A  public  policy  school  should  be  akey  element  of  fulfilling  the  land  grant  mission  in  the  twenty-­‐first  century.Through  publications  in  scholarly  journals  and  books,  undergraduate  andgraduate  training,  engagement  in  the  media,  and  forums  and  mini-­‐courses  forpolicy  makers,  the  School  of  Public  Policy  will  facilitate  and  contribute  to  keypublic  policy  debates.  It  will  serve  as  the  principal  conduit  between  Cornell  andthe  public  on  matters  of  public  policy.

Most  of  our  peer  institutions  have  had  public  policy  schools  or  centers  for  decades.  For  example,  the  Kennedy  School  of  Government  at  Harvard,  the  Woodrow  Wilson  School  at  Princeton,  the  Ford  School  at  Michigan,  the  Harris  School  at  Chicago.  These  schools  help  position  these  universities  among  the  world’s  most  eminent  social  science  institutions.  They  train  enlightened  public  scholars  and  leaders  and  generate  cutting  edge  research-­‐based  ideas  that  provide  answers  to  the  world’s  most  challenging  public  policy  problems.  The  schools  provide  distinctive  educational  programs  emphasizing  the  marriage  of  disciplinary-­‐based  theory,  well-­‐honed  analytic  skills,  and  deep  substantive  knowledge  of  particular  areas  that  are  brought  to  bear  in  the  context  of  specific  policy  problems.  Faculty  in  these  schools  conduct  world-­‐class  research  and  produce  knowledge  on  which  sound  public  policy  can  be  based  and  they  collaborate  directly  with  specific  government  agencies  

Cornell  University  has  many  high-­‐caliber,  internationally-­‐known  policy  scholars,  but  they  are  located  in  departments  and  centers  dispersed  across  campus.  This  dispersion  dilutes  their  visibility  and  creates  isolation  and  dilution  of  effort.  Under  the  current  Cornell  structure,  bringing  these  scholars  together  for  intellectual  exchange,  research  initiatives,  dialogue,  and  teaching  initiatives  is  extremely  difficult.  There  is  no  integrating  institutional  structure  within  which  the  research  and  teaching  of  public  policy  at  Cornell  can  be  encouraged,  facilitated,  and  promoted  in  order  to  place  us  distinctively  higher  than  our  peers  in  the  national  rankings.  Consequently,  much  of  Cornell’s  excellent  public-­‐policy  research  goes  unrecognized   in  the  national  and  international  rankings.      

C-3

 

Many  outstanding  disciplinary-­‐trained  social  scientists  doing  applied  policy  work  at  Cornell  are  located  in  applied  departments  across  campus,  and  are  neither  in  joint  appointments  nor  affiliated  with  the  core  social  science  departments.    For  example,  nationally  recognized  policy  scholars  with  training  in  economics,  sociology,  and  psychology,  are  located  in  units  such  as  PAM,  AEM,  ILR,  and  Law.    Within  Cornell’s  organizational  structure,  the  true  quality  of  scholars  working  in  public  policy  is  not  as  visible  to  the  external  academic  community  as  they  would  be  if  combined  into  a  school  of  public  policy.    Dispersion  also  creates  inefficiencies  in  both  research  and  teaching  programs  through  duplication  and  dilution  of  effort.  Many  of  these  top-­‐quality,  disciplinary-­‐trained  scholars  do  not  contribute  to  the  external  reputation  of  the  institution  or  its  core  social  science  disciplines  because  of  lack  of  critical  scholar  mass  within  their  applied  departments  and  because  their  work  is  not  connected  as  part  of  an  integrated  public  policy  research  mission  of  the  university.  Some  visibility  is  obtained  through  policy  centers  and  programs  at  Cornell,  but  none  of  these  programs  has  the  external  visibility  and  impact  of  an  integrated  School  of  Public  Policy.  Part  of  this  problem  is  also  a  result  of  the  very  large  and  often  ill-­‐defined  centers  and  the  structure  of  funding  for  these  centers.  

Gathering  the  already  existing  public  policy  expertise  and  teaching  resources  at  Cornell  into  a  School  of  Public  Policy  will  place  Cornell  in  a  position  of  leadership  in  vital  emerging  areas  of  both  national  and  international  policy,  such  as  environmental  policy  and  renewable  energy,  health  care,  education,  global  labor  market  problems,  aging  and  Social  Security,  urban  and  rural  development,  and  international  relations.  We  already  have  substantial  resources  on  campus  to  offer  cutting  edge  research  and  teaching  programs  in  these  areas;  what  is  needed  is  an  institutional  structure  within  which  these  research  and  teaching  programs  are  organized,  facilitated,  and  promoted.      

The  committee  believes  that  this  is  an  ideal  time  for  Cornell  University  to  establish  a  School  of  Public  Policy,  that  its  establishment  will  put  Cornell’s  already  vibrant  and  high  quality  research  and  teaching  faculty  and  programs  on  the  national  and  international  map,  competing  well  with  our  peer  institutions,  and  that  the  synergies  created  by  joint  hires  and  joint  appointments  between  the  School  of  Public  Policy;  the  core  social  science  departments  in  Arts  and  Sciences;  and  applied  social  sciences  units  such  as  Development  Sociology,  HD,  ILR,  and  Law  will  significantly  enhance  the  rankings  of  social  science  units  across  Cornell.                  

B. What  sort  of  public  policy  program  structure  should  Cornell  establish?

Our  peer  institutions  house  a  variety  of  public  policy  research  and  teachingprograms,  from  institutes  and  centers  (Brown  and  UPenn)  to  fully  integrated  schools  of  public  policy  (Harvard  and  Princeton).    Each  of  these  structures  is  a  product  of  history  within  their  institutions.  Cornell  University,  unconstrained  by  a  history  of  an  existing  organizational  structure,  is  in  a  favorable  position  of  being  able  to  choose  the  optimal  organizational  structure  to  promote  public  policy  

C-4

 

research  and  the  social  sciences  within  this  institution  as  it  moves  forward.    After  careful  consideration  of  other  programs  around  the  country,  the  committee  believes  that  the  optimal  structure  for  a  public  policy  program  at  Cornell  would  contain  three  key  elements:    

1) It  would  be  an  independent  School  of  Public  Policy  with  its  own  uniqueidentity.    Ideally  it  would  be  academically  overseen  by  its  own  Dean  who  hasindependent  authority  and  resources  to  encourage  and  enhance  externallyfunded  research  programs  in  public  policy  and  to  create  a  new  school  culturewith  faculty  drawn  from  diverse  departments  and  colleges  (endowed/statutory).

2) The  School  should  have  a  sufficient  number  of  dedicated  faculty  lines  tosupport  its  core  teaching  programs.    A  school  of  less  than  35-­‐40  lines  would  notbe,  in  our  view,  sufficient  to  create  visibility  and  promote  the  goals  we  haveoutlined  above,  and  maintain  the  teaching  needs  of  the  core  programs  needed  tobe  offered  (BS,  MPP,  MPA,  and  PhD).

3) The  School  should  be  strongly  connected  to  the  core  social  sciencedepartments  in  Arts  and  Sciences  and  the  applied  social  science  departmentsthrough  joint  hires,  joint  appointments,  and  affiliated  faculty.  These  joint  hiresand  joint  appointments  would  be  part  of  the  proposed  35-­‐40  lines.

These  elements  can  best  be  met  by  creating  three  layers  of  faculty  involvement.    First,  the  School  should  have  a  core  set  of  faculty  dedicated  to  the  School.    The  necessary  lines  could  be  obtained  by  beginning  with  the  Department  of  Policy  and  Management  (PAM)  contributing  the  core  faculty  lines  for  the  program,  and  adding  new  faculty  lines  or  moving  faculty  already  at  Cornell  who  would  be  better  housed  in  a  School  of  Public  Policy.  Further  hiring  would  be  necessary  to  complete  the  package  so  as  to  cover  aspects  of  Public  Policy  that  would  not  be  sufficiently  covered  with  the  initial  appointments  (outlined  below).    Second,  the  School  should  establish  joint  appointments  with  scholars  at  Cornell  who  conduct  public  policy  research,  but  who  are  better  served  by  remaining  in  their  home  departments.    Finally,  the  School  should  establish  a  set  of  affiliated  scholars  at  Cornell  who  will  be  able  to  contribute  to,  and  who  would  benefit  from  the  School's  mission.  

The  PAM  Department  is  home  to  social  scientists  whose  research  is  validated  by  publications  in  top  peer  reviewed  social  science  journals  as  well  as  very  active  externally  funded  grant  activity.    The  research  ongoing  in  PAM  contributes  to  the  reputation  of  two  of  the  core  social  science  fields  (economics  and  sociology)  and  also  to  Cornell’s  reputation  in  the  more  specialized  social  science  fields  of  public  policy  analysis  and  demography.    In  addition,  PAM’s  faculty  has  strength  in  quantitative  methods  and  conducts  research  on  the  effects  of  government  policies  on  individuals  and  society.  Under  the  general  public  policy  rubric,  PAM’s  research  strengths  are  in  health  policy,  family  and  social  welfare  policy,  and  regulatory  policy.    The  first  two  of  these  areas  are  listed  as  areas  of  specialty  in  the  U.S.  News  &  World  

C-5

 

Report  (USN&WR)  rankings  of  public  policy  programs  (as  Health  Policy  and  Management  and  Social  Policy).  PAM  currently  staffs  four  degree  programs  (BS  in  Policy  Analysis  and  Management,  an  accelerated  5-­‐year  BS/MS  degree  in  Policy  Analysis  and  Management,  the  Sloan  Masters  in  Health  Administration  (MHA),  and  the  Ph.D.  in  Policy  Analysis  and  Management).    The  new  School  would  offer  broader  versions  of  the  PAM  undergraduate  and  masters  degrees.  A  Ph.D.  in  public  policy  might  also  be  offered,  although  we  have  not  reached  consensus  about  whether  this  degree  should  be  restricted  to  students  who  are  simultaneously  pursuing  a  Ph.D.  in  a  core  discipline.  

The  committee  believes  that  anything  less  than  a  full  commitment  by  the  administration  to  establish  an  independent  School  of  Public  Policy  would  be  a  band-­‐aid  solution.  However,  the  committee  recognizes  that  the  path  to  this  new  School  may  involve  a  transition  period.  

C. What  sort  of  academic  programs  should  a  School  of  Public  Policy  atCornell  offer?

The  School  must  offer  undergraduate  and  graduate  education  in  publicpolicy.    It  must  also  include  terminal  Master's  degree  programs.  It  would  include  a  PhD  program,  which  would  be  a  stand  alone  program,  or  part  of  joint  degrees  in  core  social  science  disciplines.  

While  the  undergraduate  and  PhD  programs  are  essential  to  the  School,  the  hallmarks  of  most  top  public  policy  programs  and,  in  fact,  the  basis  for  national  program  rankings  (see  ranking  methods  described  in  the  last  page  of  the  Appendix),  is  the  Master’s  degree  program  (MPP)  (Cordes  et  al.,  2008;  Ellwood,  2008).    Several  top-­‐ranked  programs  have  both  undergraduate  and  PhD  programs,  but  they  are  smaller  in  size  and  prominence  within  the  programs.  PAM  currently  has  approximately  230  undergraduate  majors.  The  committee  believes  that  the  School  of  Public  Policy  at  Cornell  should  have  as  its  signature  programs  both  a  high  quality,  research-­‐based  Master’s  degree  program  (MPP)  for  training  policy  analysts  for  positions  in  government  and  other  research  institutions  (and  possible  further  PhD  training),  and  a  terminal  Master’s  degree  program  for  students  wishing  to  go  into  (or  go  back  into)  the  political  public  policy  making  arena  (MPA).  These  two  signature  programs  would  position  Cornell  well  for  being  ranked  in  the  top  10  programs  nationally  within  the  foreseeable  future,  both  in  the  overarching  fields  of  Public  Policy/Public  Affairs  and  in  several  of  the  specialty  fields  identified  in  those  rankings,  namely  Social  Policy,  Health  Policy  and  Management,  Environmental  Policy  and  Management,  Public  Policy  Analysis,  and  City  Management  and  Urban  Policy  (see  Appendix  2009  ranking  of  programs  from  U.S.  News  &  World  Report).    

As  background,  the  most  recognized  rankings  of  Public  Policy  Programs  are  the  ones  reported  by  the  U.S.  News  and  World  Report  (USN&WR).  While  the  

C-6

 

USN&WR  rankings  are  subject  to  numerous  criticisms,  they  are  widely  used  and  recognized  in  the  field  of  public  policy.    In  the  USN&WR  rankings,  “Public  Affairs”  is  a  broad  term  that  covers  two  very  different  types  of  Master’s  degree  programs:  1)  the  Public  Administration  programs  that  began  in  the  1920s  at  such  places  as  Syracuse  University;  and  2)  the  Public  Policy  programs  created  in  the  1960s  with  the  help  of  Ford  Foundation  grants  (e.g.,  at  Berkeley,  Carnegie-­‐Mellon,  Duke,  Harvard,  Michigan,  Texas,  the  Stanford  Business  School,  and  RAND).    The  difference  between  the  two  programs  is  that  Public  Administration  programs  (e.g.,  CIPA  at  Cornell)  are  grounded  in  political  science  and  public  management  and  focus  on  budgeting  and  human  resource  issues  in  government,  whereas  Public  Policy  programs  are  grounded  in  economics,  sociology,  and  quantitative  methods,  and  focus  on  research  measuring  the  effects  of  government  policies.  The  committee  believes  that  Cornell’s  strength  and  competitive  advantage  lies  in  the  latter  type  of  program,  those  in  Public  Policy.      

 The  committee  believes  that  a  two-­‐year  professional  Masters  of  Public  Policy  (MPP)  degree  should  be  the  signature  program  for  the  new  school.  It  should  be  a  broad  based,  empirically  oriented  program  that  includes  course  work  in  economics,  political  science,  political  process,  policy  implementation,  methods,  and  depth  in  substantive  policy  areas  already  offered  at  Cornell  in  various  departments.  The  committee  believes  that,  in  order  to  achieve  national  recognition,  the  Cornell  School  of  Public  Policy  must  offer  programs  with  the  following  characteristics.  

Research-­‐based  faculty  and  teaching  programs.  Research  is  the  core  of  top  public  policy  programs,  and  undergraduate  and  graduate  teaching/extension  efforts  should  flow  from  that  research.  Students  in  the  program  should  be  mentored  by  faculty  who  are  recognized  experts  in  the  particular  area  of  research  they  wish  to  study,  and  their  training  in  substantive  policy  areas  should  reflect  the  expertise  of  the  faculty.  Ongoing  research  projects  should  provide  opportunities  for  students  to  get  hands-­‐on  training  by  becoming  involved  in  policy-­‐relevant  research.    

Empirically-­‐based  research  programs.  Social  science  has  undergone  a  quantitative  revolution  in  the  last  30  years.  The  availability  of  large-­‐scale  data  sets  and  advances  in  computer  technology  and  statistical  software  have  changed  the  way  in  which  many  social  scientists  conduct  their  work.  In  addition,  public  policy  is  increasingly  being  driven  by  “evidence  based  research.”  The  need  for  data  to  address  important  and  complex  social  issues  has  led  many  public  policy  researchers  to  utilize  a  large-­‐scale  science  model.  As  applied  to  policy-­‐relevant  social  science  research,  this  model  generally  requires  peer  reviewed  external  funding  to  support  (1)  large-­‐scale  multi-­‐year  projects;  (2)  multi-­‐disciplinary  teams  of  faculty,  research  associates,  and  graduate  students;  and  (3)  data  collection  efforts  or  statistical  analysis  of  existing  data.  This  empirically-­‐based  focus  is  an  important  principle  in  developing  high  quality  public  policy  programs,  and  strong  training  in  methods  must  be  the  hallmark  of  such  programs.  

C-7

 

Broad-­‐based  APPAM-­‐type  teaching  programs.  The  Association  of  Public  Policy  and  Management  (APPAM)  is  the  primary  professional  organization  of  public  policy  programs.  The  basic  elements  that  are  included  in  most  broad-­‐based  policy  programs  that  are  affiliated  with  APPAM  include:  (a)  economics;  (b)  political  science  and  the  political  process;  (c)  methods;  (d)  process  and  policy  implementation;  (e)  ethics;  and  (f)  substantive  policy  areas.        

Domestic  and  international  focus:  The  committee  believes  that  the  new  school  of  public  policy  should  encompass  both  domestic  and  international  policy  and  train  the  next  generation  of  scholars  and  professionals  who  will  carry  forward  a  commitment  to  international  knowledge,  teaching,  and  service.  

SUBSTANTIVE  AREAS  OF  PUBLIC  POLICY  EXPERTISE  ALREADY  EXISTING  AT  CORNELL  

Economics,  Sociology,  and  Applied  Departments  

Cornell  already  has  a  large  number  of  faculty  with  expertise  in  empirically-­‐  based,  policy-­‐relevant  research.  Substantive  policy  areas  in  which  Cornell  is  already  outstanding  include:  international  development  (ECON,  AEM);  labor  market  policy  (ILR);  environmental  and  energy  policy  (CALS);  food  systems  and  obesity  (PAM,  AEM);  education  policy  (ILR,  PAM,  CALS);  city  and  urban  policy  (CRP);  rural  economic  development  (Development  Sociology);  poverty  and  inequality  (Soc);  criminal  justice  (Law  School,  PAM);  and  American  politics,  international  relations,  and  comparative  politics  (Government).  Development  of  these  concentration  areas  by  faculty  across  the  campus  working  in  these  policy  areas  through  joint  appointments  and  other  types  of  affiliations  will  be  essential  to  the  success  of  the  initiative.  We  are  confident  that  the  establishment  of  a  School  of  Public  Policy  at  Cornell  will  include  participation  of  a  wide  variety  of  academics  in  units  across  campus  who  conduct  high-­‐quality,  empirically-­‐based,  policy-­‐relevant  research.  Cooperation  with  these  like-­‐minded  scholars  would  also  allow  us  to  offer  concentration  courses  in  a  wide  variety  of  additional  subfields.  The  School  of  Public  Policy  also  would  have  natural  connections  to  other  core  disciplines  in  addition  to  Economics  and  Sociology.    

Anthropology  

Sustaining  and  enhancing  an  anthropological  perspective  in  the  School  of  Public  Policy  would  be  critical,  particularly  as  ethnographic  perspectives  are  increasingly  sought  to  explain  both  individual  and  collective  socio-­‐cultural  behaviors  —  primarily  through  socio-­‐cultural  anthropology,  urban  anthropology,  economic,  political,  and  legal  anthropology.    Recognizing  the  unique  perspectives  provided  by  qualitative  and  ethnographic  work,  especially  when  grassroots  perspectives  are  greatly  needed,  is  a  growing  emphasis  in  many  leading  schools  of  

C-8

 

public  policy  around  the  nation.    The  School  of  Public  Policy  at  Cornell  could  be  instrumental  in  leading  the  integration  of  more  broadly  defined  social  scientific  perspectives  in  public  policy  through  forums  and  public  symposia  that  could  attract  prominent  policy  makers  and  academicians  to  dialogue  on  the  contributions  of  qualitative  and  quantitative  social  scientists  to  important  public  policy  issues.  

An  example  of  how  critical  anthropologists  could  be  to  areas  of  strength  within  the  Cornell  School  of  Public  Policy,  the  Department  of  Anthropology  was  recently  involved  in  a  target  hire  of  a  prominent  medical  anthropologist  in  2008-­‐2009  whose  background  and  expertise  fit  perfectly  to  serve  links  between  health  scholars  in  Policy  Analysis  and  Management,  Weill-­‐Cornell  Medical  College,  and  potentially  even  the  Law  School  (e.g.,  organ  transplant  industry).  An  emergent  priority  with  the  Department  of  Anthropology  that  would  fit  well  with  a  School  of  Public  Policy  at  Cornell  has  been  their  efforts  to  build  in  the  area  of  global  health,  public  health,  and  biomedical  anthropology.    

Government  

The  Government  Department  will  be  a  central  collaboration  contributing  to  the  success  of  a  School  of  Public  Policy  at  Cornell,  especially  their  strength  in  American  Politics,  comparative  politics,  political  theory,  and  their  recent  strength  building  in  quantitative  studies  of  public  opinion  and  political  behavior.  It  is  hard  to  imagine  the  new  School  of  Public  Policy  at  Cornell  without  the  Government  Department  as  a  central  contributor  to  such  an  effort.    

School  of  Industrial  and  Labor  Relations  (ILR)  

Some  of  the  most  interesting  contributions  to  the  study  of  central  public  policy  issues  have  come  from  disciplines  such  as  sociology,  political  science,  labor  economics,  and  organizational  behavior,  all  strengths  in  the  ILR  School  at  Cornell.  They  foster  cross-­‐disciplinary  work  and  dialogue  in  the  form  of  conferences,  public  lectures,  and  symposia  all  focused  on  issues  of  American  labor  and  employment  policies,  labor  standards  and  labor  law,  critical  issues  in  public  policy  and  political  economy.    The  school  is  increasingly  moving  in  the  direction  of  building  expertise  and  building  a  teaching  portfolio  surrounding  global  labor  issues  and  the  changing  global  workforce.      

City  and  Regional  Planning  (CRP)  

The  department  of  City  and  Regional  Planning  (CRP)  has  substantial  scholarly  expertise  and  a  teaching  portfolio  in  areas  that  will  be  critical  to  the  School  of  Public  Policy  at  Cornell,  especially  in  the  areas  of  urban  planning,  administration,  and  development.  Faculty  from  CRP  have  expertise  in  areas  such  as  urban  politics/development  and  public  administration,  environmental  planning  and  regulation,  planning  for  sustainable  transportation,  resource  management  and  environmental  law,  economic  and  community  development,  land  use  and  real  estate  

C-9

 

regulation  and  planning,  public  administration,  urban  public  finance,  and  real  estate  law  and  planning.    Together  with  faculty  from  the  Real  Estate  Program  in  the  Hotel  School  and  faculty  members  from  the  Law  School,  the  School  of  Public  Policy  at  Cornell  could  take  the  lead  amongst  its  peers  in  urban  public  policy  and  local  public  administrative  issues.    

WHAT  ARE  THE  MINIMUM  INVESTMENTS  NEEDED  TO  POSITION  A  NEW  PUBLIC  POLICY  SCHOOL

AT  CORNELL  IN  THE  TOP  10?  

While  Cornell  has  a  large  number  of  faculty  working  in  the  concentrations  mentioned  above,  the  committee  identified  the  minimum  investments  needed  to  position  a  new  School  of  Public  Policy  in  the  top  10.  Specifically,  the  committee  identified  the  area  of  Public  Finance,  including  aspects  of  taxation  and  fiscal  federalism  as  a  priority  area  for  investment.  Another  important  area,  central  to  top  public  policy  schools,  is  political  science.  The  committee  sees  these  two  areas  as  central  to  the  core  of  public  policy  training  and  we  describe  this  in  detail,  below.  

  Political  Science/Political  Economy.    As  a  discipline,  political  science  lives  on  the  fault  line  between  two  cultures  in  the  academy,  the  sciences  and  the  humanities.  Political  science  is  a  social  science  concerned  with  the  theory  and  practice  of  politics  and  the  description  and  analysis  of  political  systems  and  political  behavior.  It  is  often  described  as  the  study  of  politics  defined  as  "who  gets  what,  when  and  how."  Social  scientists  in  this  field  examine  how  the  political  organization  of  federal,  state,  and  local  government  influence  fiscal  policy  and  economic  performance;  the  role  of  political  parties  in  coordinating  policy  across  layers  of  government;  the  allocation  and  transfer  of  power  in  decision-­‐making;  the  roles  and  systems  of  governance  including  governments  and  international  organizations,  public  policies,  public  administration,  and  the  non-­‐profit  sector.    For  example,  at  the  Kennedy  School  of  Government  at  Harvard  University  their  political  scientists  are  integrally  involved  in  their  Center  for  Democratic  Government  and  Innovation,  the  Carr  Center  for  Human  Rights,  the  Center  for  Public  Leadership,  and  the  Center  for  State  and  Local  Government.  Types  of  courses  that  political  scientists  teach  within  schools  of  public  policy  include,  among  others,  courses  on  political  economy,  democratic  political  institutions,  federalism,  politics  of  the  law  and  courts,  ethics  and  public  policy,  political  theory  and  philosophy,  and  American  politics  and  government.    

Public  Finance  and  Tax  Policy.    Cornell  has  a  small  number  of  high  quality  faculty  doing  research  and  teaching  in  the  area  of  public  finance,  but  further  investments  in  this  area  would  be  needed  in  a  School  of  Public  Policy  at  Cornell  to  provide  a  comprehensive  research/teaching  portfolio  in  public  finance.  Social  scientists  would  be  needed  who  work  in  the  area  of  public  finance,  laws  and  taxation,  government  spending,  operations,  and  income  distribution.  The  type  of  social  scientists  needed  are  those  concerned  with  issues  surrounding  paying  for  collective  or  governmental  activities,  and  with  the  administration  and  design  of  those  activities,  addressing  questions  such  as  the  role  of  government  in  a  free  

C-10

 

market  economy,  what  the  government  or  collective  organizations  should  do,  or  are  doing,  and  questions  of  how  to  pay  for  those  activities.  

CURRENTLY  EXISTING  CENTERS,  INSTITUTES,  AND  PROGRAMS  AT  CORNELL  THAT  HAVE  PUBLICPOLICY  RELEVANCE  AND  SHOULD  BE  AFFILIATED  WITH  THE  CORNELL  SCHOOL  OF  PUBLICPOLICY  

The  committee  has  also  identified  multiple  research  centers  institutes  and  programs  at  Cornell  that  might  be  affiliated  with  a  new  School  of  Public  Policy.  Examples  include:  Mario  Einaudi  Center  for  International  Studies,  Cornell  Center  for  a  Sustainable  Future,  the  Center  for  the  Study  of  Economy  and  Society,  the  Center  for  the  Study  of  Inequality,  the  Community  and  Rural  Development  Institute,  Cornell  Institute  for  Social  and  Economic  Research,  Cornell  Institute  for  Translational  Research  on  Aging,  Cornell  International  Institute  for  Food,  Agriculture,  and  Development  (CIIFAD).  

The  committee  recommends  the  creation  of  several  research-­‐based  institutes  housed  in  the  School  of  Public  Policy.  The  purpose  of  these  institutes  would  be  to  facilitate  collaborative  research,  to  disseminate  basic  research  for  public  policy  audiences,  and  to  organize  a  variety  of  policy  forums  that  will  bring  to  campus  policy  makers  and  practitioners.  Already  existing  centers  and  institutes  such  as  CISER,  ISS,  BLCC,  and  Survey  Research  Center  would  find  their  natural  homes  in  a  School  of  Public  Policy.    

CONCLUSIONS  

Making  the  case  for  a  School  of  Public  Policy  is  quite  easy,  especially  in  large  public  universities  that  have  distinct  public  service  missions  and  many  other  policy-­‐related  programs  that  require  coursework  that  is  typically  part  of  a  graduate  public  policy  program.  The  external  benefit  from  having  a  strong  public  policy  school  is  not  that  its  programs  will  provide  public  service  per  se,  but  rather  that  the  school  can  become  the  nucleus  of  knowledge  creation  for  use  by  the  public  sector.  In  addition,  the  courses  offered  as  part  of  a  MPP  curriculum  in  applied  economics,  quantitative  analysis,  ethics,  public  management,  and  political  institutions,  for  example,  also  will  contribute  to  the  teaching  programs  in  Sociology,  Economics,  Government,  Anthropology,  among  other  areas,  to  provide  depth  and  breadth  in  the  educational  experience,  especially  for  students  for  whom  a  traditional  discipline-­‐based  course  might  not  be  as  well  suited.  

C-11

 

References:  

Cordes,  J.,  Conger,  D.,  Ladd,  H,  and  Luger,  M.    (2008  Autumn)  "Undergraduate  and  Doctoral  Education  in  Public  Policy:    What?    Why?    Why  Not?  Where  to?"  Journal  of  Policy  Analysis  and  Management  27(4):  1009-­‐1026.  

Ellwood,  J.  W.  (2008  Winter)  "Challenges  to  Public  Policy  and  Public  Management  Education."    Journal  of  Policy  Analysis  and  Management  27(1):  172-­‐187.  

C-12

 

Appendix  US  News  &  World  Reports  

Rankings  of  Public  Policy  Programs  August  2009  

How  the  USN&WR  rankings  work:  

The  USN&WR  rankings  are  based  solely  on  the  results  of  a  peer  assessment  survey,  i.e.,  responses  of  deans,  directors,  and  department  chairs  representing  ~269  master's  of  public  affairs  and  administration  programs  around  the  country.  Respondents  are  asked  to  rate  the  academic  quality  of  master's  programs  on  a  scale  of  1  (marginal)  to  5  (outstanding).  Scores  for  each  school  are  totaled  and  divided  by  the  number  of  respondents  who  rated  that  school.  The  response  rate  in  the  2007  data  presented  in  the  Appendix  was  40  percent.  The  lists  of  schools  and  individuals  surveyed  were  provided  by  the  National  Association  of  Schools  of  Public  Affairs  and  Administration  and  the  Association  for  Public  Policy  Analysis  and  Management  (APPAM).  The  latter  organization  is  one  with  which  many  faculty  at  Cornell  are  affiliated  and  whose  conferences  are  attended  by  several  Cornell  scholars  from  different  departments  around  campus.    The  “specialty  rankings”  (rankings  by  specific  areas  of  study  also  reported  in  the  Appendix)  are  based  solely  on  ratings  by  educators  at  peer  schools.  Public  affairs  school  deans  and  other  academics  are  asked  to  nominate  up  to  10  programs  for  excellence  in  each  specialty.  Those  receiving  the  most  nominations  are  listed.  In  terms  of  the  specialty  rankings,  it  is  important  to  keep  in  mind  that  nominees  are  drawn  only  from  the  schools  surveyed.  So,  for  example,  a  university  like  Yale  (which  offers  a  degree  in  environmental  management  through  its  School  of  Forestry  and  Environmental  Studies  but  not  a  degree  in  public  affairs)  does  not  show  up  in  these  specialty  rankings.  In  the  same  vein,  several  of  Cornell’s  top  policy  areas  located  in  AEM,  ILR,  and  PAM  are  also  not  ranked.  The  PAM  department  is  a  medium-­‐sized  department  (29  faculty  lines)  within  a  college,  and  because  it  does  not  offer  a  MPP  or  MPA  program,  it  does  not  fit  the  description  of  a  “Public  Administration”  program  that  is  used  in  the  USN&WR  and  is  also  not  included  in  the  specialty  rankings,  even  though  it  has  significant  strength  in  Health  Policy,  Social  Welfare  Policy,  and  Regulatory  Policy.  On  the  other  hand,  Cornell’s  Institute  for  Public  Affairs  (CIPA)  offers  a  Masters  in  Public  Affairs  degree,  and  therefore  is  ranked  within  the  USN&WR  (national  ranking  of  36th  in  2007).  CIPA  is  a  non-­‐department  based  program  with  no  dedicated  faculty  lines,  and  the  Director  of  the  Program  reports  directly  to  the  Provost,  not  an  academic  dean.  Its  mission  is  focused  on  a  terminal  2-­‐year  Masters  in  Public  Affairs  certification  mainly  for  mid-­‐career  professionals.    The  committee  recommends  that  this  program  be  moved  to  the  new  School  of  Public  Policy.  The  synergies  between  this  program  and  the  proposed  MPP  below  are  obvious.  

C-13

 

Overall  rankings:  title  =  “Public  Affairs”  

C-14

 

Social  Policy  

C-15

 

Health  Policy  and  Management  

C-16

 

Environmental  Policy  and  Management  

C-17

 

Public  Policy  Analysis  

C-18

 

C-19

 

Public  Management  and  Administration  

C-20

 

C-21

 

Public  Affairs  

C-22

 

C-23

 

City  Management  and  Urban  Policy  

C-24

 

Explaining  the  rankings  

C-25

 

Appendix  D.  Increasing  Collaboration  within  Disciplines  by  Merging  Units  

Overview  

Recent  external  evaluations  of  Economics,  Psychology,  and  Sociology  have  identified  significant  strengths  in  each  of  these  disciplines.    All  three  have  the  potential  to  be  among  the  top  ten  in  their  respective  fields,  but  all  three  are  hampered  by  a  similar  problem:  In  each  field,  there  are  significant  numbers  of  faculty  on  campus,  but  these  faculty  members  are  dispersed  across  multiple  units.    This  dispersion  significantly  limits  the  ability  of  Economics,  Psychology,  and  Sociology  to  raise  their  stature  or  rankings.  

One  implication  of  this  dispersion  is  that  the  core  departments  in  the  College  of  Arts  &  Sciences  (A&S)  are  all  very  small:  20-­‐30%  smaller  than  the  median  size  of  higher-­‐ranked  departments  in  private  institutions,  and  40-­‐50%  smaller  than  the  median  size  of  all  higher-­‐ranked  departments,  including  those  in  large  public  institutions.    While  A&S  as  a  whole  is  also  smaller  than  its  peers  (roughly  11%  smaller  than  private  competitors  and  33%  smaller  than  public  competitors),  the  core  departments  in  Economics,  Psychology  and  Sociology  are  smaller  still.  

Of  course,  size  per  se  is  not  the  goal.    Size  matters  only  because  it  is  correlated  with  the  outputs  that  generate  a  high  national  stature  -­‐-­‐-­‐  most  notably,  the  number  of  publications  by  Cornell  authors  in  flagship  disciplinary  journals  or  top  university  presses,  and  the  number  of  graduate  students  who  go  on  to  top  departments.    But  a  second  implication  of  the  dispersion  of  faculty,  and  especially  of  the  pursuit  of  disparate  missions  that  accompanies  it,  is  that  it  hinders  Cornell’s  ability  to  recruit  top  scholars  and  train  highly  marketable  graduate  students.  

The  task  for  our  subgroup  was  to  explore  new  institutional  arrangements  to  overcome  these  limitations.  We  did  so  with  several  goals  in  mind:  

Improve  Cornell’s  ranking  in  these  fields,  ideally  into  the  “top  10.”  

We  think  that  the  key  is  strength  in  the  A&S  departments,  but  we  need  to  be  wary  of  harming  the  hiring/retention  efforts  and  educational  programs  of  other  units.  

One  obstacle  is  a  mechanical  ranking  issue:  to  the  extent  that  rankings  are  based  exclusively  on  the  membership  of  the  A&S  department,  Cornell  may  not  be  reaping  the  full  benefit  of  the  research  contributions  of  faculty  outside  the  A  &  S  departments.    In  particular,  if  key  individuals  currently  outside  of  the  A&S  departments  are  brought  inside  these  departments,  our  rankings  might  increase.  

D-1

 

Improve  interaction  among  faculty  within  each  discipline,  and  also  across  disciplines,  especially  with  respect  to  research,  hiring,  strategic  planning,  and  teaching  (grad  and  undergrad).  

Improve  Cornell’s  ability  to  hire  nationally  renowned  senior  scholars  and  star  junior  scholars.  

In  our  discussions,  we  identified  a  set  of  possible  models  for  Cornell  to  consider,  some  more  aggressive  than  others.  We  have  done  our  best  to  flesh  out  these  models,  and  to  identify  some  of  the  advantages  and  disadvantages  associated  with  each.    Nonetheless,  further  thought  is  clearly  required,  and  we  look  forward  to  discussing  these  models  with  the  full  SSTF.  

A  few  further  opening  comments:  

We  emphasize  that  there  is  no  presumption  that  the  same  model  will  be  optimal  for  all  three  disciplines.  We  each  had  reactions  about  what  would  work  best  in  our  own  disciplines,  but  we  decided  not  to  put  these  in  this  report  in  order  to  avoid  influencing  the  reactions  from  the  full  SSTF.  

Currently,  different  units  within  these  disciplines  pursue  many  different  missions,  although  these  differences  may  be  overstated.  We  took  the  position  that  we  should  not  necessarily  assume  the  sanctity  of  all  these  missions,  and  indeed  that  some  consolidation  may  be  ideal.  Under  most  models,  consolidation  will  require  discussion  and  negotiation  with  the  relevant  deans.    

As  we  identified  and  debated  possible  models,  we  did  so  from  two  perspectives.    First,  what  are  the  long-­‐run  implications  for  excellence  in  the  discipline?  Second,  will  the  implementation  be  so  painful  that  our  best  faculty  members  leave  Cornell  and/or  our  departments  lose  all  semblance  of  collegiality  (thereby  affecting  long-­‐term  prospects)?    

Historically,  some  units  have  been  more  successful  than  others  in  choosing  areas,  wooing  prominent  faculty,  training  graduate  students,  and  so  forth.    When  creating  formal  institutional  links  between  units,  we  must  be  wary  of  undermining  this  past  success.  

Some  models  require  minor  reallocations  of  resources,  and  others  require  more  significant  reallocations.    For  each,  we  must  address  to  what  extent  these  reallocations  lead  to  a  more  optimal  allocation  in  terms  of  the  criteria  that  generate  high  national  stature.  

At  this  point,  we  have  not  addressed  the  procedures  by  which  these  models  would  be  implemented.    Should  the  full  SSTF  decide  to  recommend  any  of  these  models,  or  a  menu  of  models  from  which  each  of  the  three  disciplines  

D-2

 

might  “select,”  we  will  need  to  add  such  procedures,  recognizing  that  there  may  be  a  tradeoff  between  the  speed  of  implementation  and  the  likelihood  that  change  leads  to  negative  outcomes.    

Brief  Overview  of  the  Four  Models  

(1) Coordinating  Committee:    Individual  units  retain  their  current  autonomy,  but  aCoordinating  Committee  with  representation  from  each  unit  is  charged  withoverseeing  the  full  disciplinary  community.

(2) Super-­Department:    A  large  department  is  “shared”  by  multiple  colleges.  It  isfunded  and  administered  by  multiple  colleges  and  serves  multiple  colleges,  butoperates  as  a  single  unit.

(3) Absorption:    We  focus  on  one  core  department,  and  absorb  lines  from  other  unitsinto  this  department.

(4) Extensive  Joint  Appointments:    We  create  links  between  component  units  viahaving  many  people  with  joint  appointments.

List  of  Issues  to  Address  for  Each  Model  

In  which  college  do  the  lines  reside  (who  funds  them)?  

What  missions  are  being  pursued,  and  who  is  pursuing  each  mission?  

What  undergraduate  and  graduate  programs  are  being  served?  

Who  makes  tenure  decisions,  and  what  is  the  procedure?  

Who  makes  hiring  decisions,  and  what  is  the  procedure?  

Do  faculty  share  a  common  physical  space?  

How  is  “leadership”  chosen  (department  chairs,  committee  chairs,  etc)?  

What  is  the  structure  of  graduate  education  in  the  discipline  -­‐-­‐  how  many  official  fields  and  distinct  curricula,  how  are  graduate  students  funded,  etc?  

D-3

 

Model  (1):  Coordinating  Committee  

Under  this  model,  the  individual  units  retain  their  current  autonomy  (lines,  missions,  curriculum,  hiring,  and  tenure),  but  a  Coordinating  Committee,  with  representation  from  each  unit,  is  charged  with  overseeing  the  full  disciplinary  community.    Its  mandate  would  include:  

Identifying  opportunities  for  the  discipline  as  a  whole  -­‐-­‐-­‐  e.g.,  an  expansion  into  some  particular  subfield.  

Identifying  hiring  or  infrastructure  needs  that  would  serve  multiple  units,  but  which  no  single  unit  is  likely  to  fill  in  isolation.  

Identifying  synergies  in  the  curricula  across  units.  

Coordinating  a  recruiting  strategy  early  each  year.  

In  addition  to  such  coordination,  the  Coordinating  Committee  might  also  have  some  formal  input  into  decisions.    For  example:  

Write  a  report  each  year  that  goes  to  the  administration  (relevant  deans  and  vice  provost  for  social  sciences)  that  provides  an  assessment  of  the  disciplinary  community  and  recommendations  for  the  future.  

Control  some  hiring  resources,  perhaps  controlling  some  lines  that  could  be  allocated  to  any  of  the  component  units,  perhaps  controlling  bridging  funds.  

Independent  input  on  hiring,  perhaps  by  preparing  an  independent  recruiting  report  early  in  the  year  that  goes  to  the  relevant  deans,  perhaps  by  writing  an  independent  assessment  of  candidates  at  some  point  in  the  process.  

Independent  input  on  tenure  decisions,  perhaps  by  providing  an  independent  advisory  assessment  of  candidates  at  some  point  in  the  process,  perhaps  by  having  the  power  to  add  someone  to  tenure  review  committees  or  ad  hoc  committees.  

The  composition  of  the  Coordinating  Committee  could  take  one  of  two  forms.    First,  it  might  include  the  formal  leadership  of  each  of  the  relevant  units  -­‐-­‐-­‐  e.g.,  department  chair  and  DGS.    Second,  it  might  intentionally  exclude  leaders  and  instead  be  comprised  entirely  of  rank-­‐and-­‐file  members  of  each  unit.  

-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐  

D-4

 

Discussion  

To  be  effective,  this  model  requires  that  the  units  are  motivated  to  work  together;  otherwise  the  individual  units  can  just  ignore  the  Coordinating  Committee.  To  address  this  issue,  numerical  representation  of  each  department  must  not  be  trivial  (15%?).    

We  think  the  prospects  for  coordination  are  especially  high  in  undergraduate  and  graduate  education.  If  it  did  nothing  else,  a  Coordinating  Committee  could  be  helpful  in  identifying  and  eliminating  duplication  in  undergraduate  course  offerings,  and  in  ensuring  the  fair  exchange  of  TA  resources  across  units  with  shared  responsibility  for  teaching  large  undergraduate  courses.    A  Coordinating  Committee  could  also  help  assess  whether  there  need  to  be  so  many  graduate  fields  in  these  three  disciplines,  and  to  explore  whether  the  funding  of  graduate  students  could  be  more  consistent  across  units  (but  only  if  there  are  resources  to  raise  all  funding  packages  to  a  level  that  allows  Cornell  to  compete  for  the  strongest  talent).    

A  major  plus  of  this  model  is  that,  compared  to  the  super-­‐department  model  discussed  below,  it  more  easily  unites  all  members  of  a  discipline  currently  dispersed  in  a  number  of  different  departments.    For  example,  the  most  likely  super-­‐department  for  Psychology  would  consist  of  the  Psychology  Department  and  Department  of  Human  Development.    Such  an  arrangement  omits  input  from  psychologists  in  ILR  and  the  Johnson  School  and  from  neuroscientists  in  NB&B.  

A  major  con  for  this  model  is  that  it  does  not  address  the  mechanical  ranking  issue.  Because  the  individual  units  remain  completely  separate,  any  ranking  that  depends  exclusively  on  the  membership  of  the  A&S  department  will  be  unaffected.  Joint  appointments  may  help  mitigate  this  problem  (see  our  discussion  of  joint  appointments  in  Model  4).  

A  second  con,  although  perhaps  a  relatively  minor  one,  is  that  a  coordinating  committee  with  nontrivial  representation  also  imposes  a  nontrivial  additional  service  burden  on  faculty.  Because  service  needs  do  not  scale  down  perfectly  with  faculty  size,  we  suspect  that  Cornell  faculty  already  spend  more  time  in  meetings  than  peers  at  larger  departments.    

D-5

 

Model  (2):  Super-­Department  

Under  this  model,  a  large  department  is  “shared”  by  multiple  colleges.  It  is  funded  and  administered  by  multiple  colleges,  and  it  serves  multiple  colleges.  

Such  departments  already  exist  in  the  biological  sciences:  three  departments  have  roughly  50%  of  their  lines  in  A&S  and  50%  of  their  lines  in  CALS.  Each  department  operates  as  a  single  unit  (and  its  offices  are  in  the  same  location),  but  serves  both  colleges.  For  more  information  on  these  arrangements,  see  our  attached  appendix.  

Some  details  for  what  this  might  look  like  in  the  social  sciences:  

Lines:  Individual  lines  are  owned/funded  by  individual  colleges.    Ideally,  there  will  be  an  initial  agreement  about  the  number  of  lines  provided  by  each  college,  and  some  way  to  enforce  that  colleges  do  not  later  renege.  

Mission:  To  be  determined  by  the  new  department  along  with  the  relevant  deans.    Perhaps  the  new  department  will  serve  all  the  missions  of  the  component  units,  but  perhaps  a  new  consolidated  mission  will  emerge  that  satisfies  everyone.  

Curriculum:  Again,  to  be  determined  by  the  new  department  along  with  the  relevant  deans.    The  unified  department  would  offer  one  or  more  majors,  and  each  of  those  majors  might  be  available  to  students  from  one  or  more  colleges  (in  Biology,  there  is  a  single  Biology  major,  and  it  is  available  to  students  from  both  A&S  and  CALS).  

Hiring:    Probably  follow  the  Biology  model.  Search  procedure  and  appointment  is  made  in  accordance  with  the  college  that  funds  the  open  line.  Within  these  constraints,  the  entire  department  conducts  the  search  and  votes  as  one  group  on  the  proposed  candidates.  

Tenure  decisions:  There  are  a  few  possible  models  here:  

(i) Biology  Model:  Each  super-­‐department  is  assigned  a  Lead  Dean,and  the  tenure  procedure  for  ALL  cases  (regardless  of  which  collegefunds  the  relevant  line)  follows  the  procedure  for  the  Lead  Dean’scollege.  There  will  be  a  single  vote  in  which  every  tenured  super-­‐department  member  gets  a  vote.    For  cases  where  the  line  is  fundedby  another  college,  the  Lead  Dean  will  assemble  the  ad  hoc  committeein  consultation  with  the  Funding  Dean,  and  it  is  expected  that  the  adhoc  committee  will  consist  of  at  least  one  member  from  each  college.The  Lead  Dean  will  prepare  a  recommendation  to  the  Provost,  but  theFunding  Dean  will  have  the  opportunity  to  write  a  conflictingrecommendation  in  the  event  of  disagreement.

D-6

 

(ii) For  each  candidate,  the  tenure  procedure  follows  the  tenureprocedure  for  the  college  that  funds  the  line.    Again,  though,  there  willbe  a  super-­‐department  vote  in  which  every  tenured  faculty  member  inthe  super-­‐department  gets  a  vote.

(iii) Hybrid:  The  tenure  procedure  is  the  same  for  ALL  cases(regardless  of  which  college  funds  the  relevant  line),  perhapsfollowing  the  procedure  for  the  Lead  Dean’s  college,  or  perhapsfollowing  a  new  procedure  designed  for  this  department.    However,the  Funding  Dean  will  assemble  the  ad  hoc  committee,  and  theFunding  Dean  will  prepare  a  recommendation  to  the  Provost.

Note:  The  advantage  of  the  first  and  third  is  that  there  is  a  uniform  procedure  for  all  super-­‐department  members.  The  advantage  of  the  second  is  that  non-­‐lead  deans  retain  more  control  over  their  lines.  

Space:  It  is  highly  desirable  that  the  super-­‐department  be  housed  together  in  shared  space,  so  that  it  truly  has  the  culture  of  a  single  department  (as  in  the  shared  Biology  departments).  

Graduate  Program:    Ideally,  the  super-­‐department  would  consolidate  graduate  education  in  the  discipline  into  a  single  field/curriculum.  All  graduate  students  in  the  super-­‐department  would  operate  under  the  same  funding  rules  and  packages  (that  would  be  competitive  with  our  peers,  of  course).  Students  with  specialized  interests  would  be  accommodated  under  concentrations  within  the  common  graduate  program.      

-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐  

Discussion  

The  main  advantage  of  this  approach  is  that  it  would  create  a  large  and  prominent  “core”  department  that  eliminates  the  dispersion  of  faculty  (especially  if  the  space  issue  is  solved),  while  at  the  same  time  multiple  colleges  are  still  served.  

In  addition,  there  are  potential  cost  savings  associated  with  this  model  -­‐-­‐-­‐  for  instance,  instead  of  having,  say,  45  people  spread  across  independent  units,  we  could  create  a  super-­‐department  of  roughly  40  that  would  most  likely  be  overall  better,  at  least  in  the  long  term  and  if  we  assume  that  the  resources  for  the  new  unit  are  sufficient  for  us  to  compete  with  our  higher-­‐ranked  peers  for  faculty  and  graduate  student  talent.    

A  second  advantage  is  that  the  hiring  prospects  for  this  larger  “core”  department  might  be  better  for  some  units  than  under  the  current  structural  arrangement.  It  might  help  in  units  outside  A&S,  where  potential  recruits  sometimes  express  

D-7

 

reservations  about  joining  a  department  that  lacks  the  core  disciplinary  name.    It  also  might  help  in  the  A&S  units,  where  potential  recruits  sometimes  express  reservations  about  the  narrow  coverage  of  a  department.  

Possible  pitfalls:  

The  super-­‐department  model  requires  that  the  relevant  deans  work  well  together  and  perceive  a  shared  mission.  As  such,  we  probably  would  involve  at  most  three  colleges  in  any  one  super-­‐department.    It  would  also  be  useful  to  have  a  few  strategic  joint  appointments  with  disciplinary  faculty  in  non-­‐participating  units.  

For  the  super-­‐department  model  to  work,  we  probably  need  to  have  some  narrowing  of  mission.    Hence,  a  major  part  of  the  formation  of  a  super-­‐department  is  a  process  to  decide  what  the  mission  will  be  (indeed,  when  assessing  the  feasibility  of  this  model,  it  will  be  important  to  assess  to  what  extent  the  relevant  Deans  will  permit  a  consolidation  of  the  missions).    In  addition,  all  members  of  the  newly  formed  department  should  have  inputs  and  a  vote  in  the  establishment  of  governing  procedures  for  all  aspects  of  faculty  decision  making.      

Under  this  model,  there  is  a  tension  between  the  autonomy  of  the  department  and  the  goals  of  the  involved  deans.    For  instance,  the  department  might  want  to  move  in  a  direction  that  maximizes  its  stature  in  the  discipline,  while  the  component  deans  might  want  to  influence  the  direction  of  the  department  so  as  to  better  serve  their  own  missions.    The  extent  of  this  tension  might  differ  by  discipline,  but  it  must  be  explicitly  addressed  before  implementing  a  super-­‐department.  

Open  questions:  

The  existing  Biology  super-­‐departments  are  in  the  most  general  colleges  -­‐-­‐-­‐  is  this  what  has  made  them  work?  

If  there  is  a  Lead  Dean,  it  will  most  likely  be  the  A&S  Dean  in  all  cases  -­‐-­‐-­‐  is  this  a  problem?    Is  this  necessary?      

Will  faculty  work  well  together,  and  see  value  in  a  unified  department?  Or  will  the  arranged  marriage  be  so  troubled  that  faculty  who  are  strong  enough  to  get  jobs  at  similar-­‐  or  higher-­‐ranked  institutions  all  leave  Cornell?  Or,  worse  still,  stay  and  are  disgruntled?    

Are  there  ways  to  ensure  salary  equity  over  time  across  the  colleges  -­‐-­‐-­‐  e.g.,  so  that  the  average  salaries  for  lines  from  each  participating  college  are  roughly  the  same?  Should  we  even  insist  on  salary  equity,  recognizing  that  in  

D-8

 

the  context  of  limited  resources,  some  inequity  is  inevitable  given  cross-­‐faculty  differences  in  research  productivity,  outside  interest,  etc?    

Finally,  what  would  happen  to  the  faculty  “orphans”  (and  their  lines)  under  this  model  if  the  super-­‐department  includes  units  that  are  currently  interdisciplinary?  For  example,  a  “natural”  super-­‐department  in  economics  might  include  the  economists  in  PAM,  but  not  the  handful  of  sociologists  in  PAM.  Unless  these  sociologists  are  absorbed  by  another  disciplinary  unit,  the  risks  of  marginalization  and  eventual  departure  are  extremely  high,  which  would  result  in  a  net  loss  of  sociologists  on  campus.  Absorbing  them  into  a  disciplinary  unit  would  entail  a  transfer  of  lines  and  resources  (e.g.,  graduate  student  funding  packages,  TA  packages,  etc)  across  colleges;  see  Model  3,  below.      

D-9

 

Model  (3):  Absorption  

Under  this  model,  we  focus  on  one  core  department,  and  absorb  lines  from  other  units  into  this  department.    In  the  end,  a  large  core  department  is  housed  entirely  within  one  college,  which  functions  as  one  department  in  all  respects.    

Absorption  may  be  immediate  (e.g.,  moving  bodies  as  well  as  lines),  or  it  may  be  long-­‐term  (e.g.,  moving  lines  only  as  they  become  vacant  through  normal  attrition,  retirement,  etc).  It  also  need  not  entail  all  members  of  the  “sending”  department(s).  This  would  allow  some  sorting  based  on  intellectual  fit  and  related  criteria,  which  may  help  Cornell  avoid  some  of  the  internecine  battles  that  plague  many  of  the  large  and  epistemologically  diverse  programs.  It  would  also  allow  the  “sending”  college  to  retain  the  mission  of  the  existing  unit,  albeit  in  attenuated  form.  

-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐  Discussion  

The  major  advantage  of  this  model  is  that  it  creates  a  larger  core  department,  but  also  eliminates  some  of  the  constraints  that  emerge  if  the  new  unit  has  formal  connections  to  multiple  colleges.  In  particular,  it  may  be  that  a  college’s  overall  mission  forces  its  department  to  adopt  missions  that  are  marginal  to  –  and  not  rewarded  by  –  the  broader  discipline.    If  so,  perhaps  we  do  not  want  that  college  to  have  formal  authority  over  subfield  coverage,  tenure  standards,  and  so  forth.  

At  the  same  time,  the  core  department  may  need  to  take  on  the  current  function  of  the  units  in  the  sending  colleges.  Otherwise,  those  colleges  might  feel  the  need  to  create  new  social  science  units  that  meet  those  needs,  thereby  recreating  our  current  problem.  The  absorption  model  thus  makes  more  sense  if  the  sending  college  is  willing  to  trim  the  scope  of  its  mission,  or  meet  it  in  other  ways.    

To  the  extent  that  the  need  is  serving  undergrads  who  want  to  major  in  social  sciences,  a  possible  solution  is  for  the  sending  and  receiving  colleges  to  agree  that  the  sending  college’s  students  can  major  in  the  receiving  college’s  new,  larger  department.    

We  need  explicit  discussion  of  how  the  lines  are  accounted  for.  How  many  lines  does  the  sending  college  lose?    How  many  lines  does  the  receiving  college  gain?    (Similar  questions  emerge  around  the  number  of  graduate  students.)  If  absorption  entails  a  major  drain  on  the  receiving  college’s  resources,  the  model  is  probably  not  politically  feasible.    

We  would  also  need  some  commitment  from  the  receiving  dean  on  the  long-­‐run  size  of  the  department.  There  is  some  worry  that  if  bodies  and  lines  are  transferred  to  the  receiving  college,  the  receiving  college  might,  over  time,  merely  shift  some  of  those  lines  into  other  departments.  To  prevent  this,  one  might,  for  example,  formally  agree  that  the  absorbed  lines  are  in  addition  to,  not  replacements  for,  existing  line  

D-10

 

allocations.  This  would  also  help  politically  with  implementation,  in  that  the  faculty  in  the  receiving  college’s  department  would  not  feel  like  they  traded  open  lines  for  which  they  could  recruit  strategically  for  faculty  who  they  had  no  input  on  hiring  or  promoting.  

A  related  worry  pertains  to  the  student-­‐faculty  ratios  in  the  new  unit.  If  lines  are  moved  from  one  college  to  another  but  students  are  not,  it  is  likely  that  the  number  of  students  taught  per  line  would  go  down  -­‐-­‐  which  might  create  an  incentive  for  the  receiving  dean  to  reduce  the  department  size.  The  drop  in  the  student-­‐faculty  ratio  may  be  attenuated  somewhat  by  eliminating  the  current  caps  on  A&S  courses,  caps  that  are  necessary  because  demand  exceeds  the  supply  of  TA  resources.  Nevertheless,  we  would  want  a  formal  commitment  and  agreement  that  the  receiving  dean  will  not  hold  declining  student-­‐faculty  ratios  against  the  department.  (And  we  note  that  in  some  ranking  systems  low  student-­‐faculty  ratios  are  a  plus  and  therefore  should  not  be  undercut.)  

D-11

 

Model  (4):  Extensive  Joint  Appointments  

Under  this  model,  we  create  extensive  links  between  departments  through  significant  numbers  of  joint  appointments.    This  can  be  done  as  a  “stand  alone”  model  or,  as  we  recommend,  in  conjunction  with  one  of  the  coordinating  committee  models  discussed  above.  

We  suspect  that  there  are  considerable  cross-­‐departmental  differences  in  how  the  terms  “joint  appointment”  and  “courtesy  appointment”  are  defined,  and  what  rights  and  responsibilities  come  with  each.  We  do  not  see  any  point  in  recommending  that  the  various  units  adopt  a  common  language,  but  for  the  purposes  of  the  SSTF’s  discussion,  here  is  our  terminology:  

Joint  appointments  have  full  citizenship  rights  and  responsibilities  in  the  receiving  department.  They  have  a  vote  in  departmental  decisions,  in  exchange  for  which  they  are  expected  to  attend  meetings,  serve  on  departmental  committees  (albeit  in  recognition  of  their  responsibilities  to  their  “home”  units),  and/or  teach  courses  that  are  cross-­‐listed  in  the  receiving  department.    In  some  departments,  voting  joint  appointments  are  only  offered  to  faculty  whose  lines  are  partly  funded  by  the  receiving  unit;  in  others,  voting  joint  appointments  can  have  0%  lines  in  the  receiving  unit.  We  do  not  feel  that  there  should  be  a  blanket  policy  governing  whether  votes  are  contingent  on  the  source  of  the  salary.    

Courtesy  appointments  are  more  honorary  than  participatory.    Courtesy  appointments  do  not  have  a  vote  in  the  receiving  unit,  but  are  also  not  expected  to  commit  much  time  or  energy  to  the  department.    In  some  departments,  courtesy  appointments  are  invited  to  participate  in  some  or  all  faculty  meetings,  although  experience  suggests  that  they  rarely  avail  themselves  of  the  opportunity  to  attend  more  meetings.  

-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐  

Discussion  

In  general,  we  think  joint  appointments  are  more  effective  than  courtesy  appointments  at  creating  cross-­‐unit  integration.  They  may  also  be  more  helpful  in  solving  the  mechanical  ranking  issue.  We  note,  however,  that  even  joint  appointments’  contribution  to  a  departments’  rankings  depend  on  whether  external  assessors  think  of  them  as  “real”  members  of  the  department  or  not.  This  is  an  empirical  question,  and  unfortunately  one  that  cannot  be  addressed  with  the  extant  data.    

One  issue  with  joint  appointments  (as  defined  above)  is  that  the  receiving  department  may  resent  ceding  control  over  departmental  decisions  to  faculty  

D-12

 

members  whose  fates  are  not  intimately  tied  to  the  department.  Acknowledging  this  concern,  a  1997  external  review  team  for  Sociology  recommended  that  joint  appointments  be  made  following  three  principles:  (1)  reciprocity,  wherein  faculty  in  the  core  units  are  offered  joint  appointments  in  the  non-­‐core  units  at  roughly  the  same  rate  as  the  reverse;  (2)  proportional  governance,  wherein  influence  over  hiring,  promotion  and  tenure,  and  membership  decisions  is  tied  to  active  participation  in  the  department  (thereby  preventing  “fly-­‐by”  votes)  and  possibly  delimited  by  area;  and  (3)  coordinated  exchange  of  time  and  other  resources,  facilitated  by  the  administration,  so  that  joint  appointments  can  become  more  directly  involved  in  departmental  activities.  The  latter  may  require  additional  funds,  especially  if  most  of  the  joint  appointments  go  in  one  direction  (because  the  sending  units  must  be  compensated).    

The  external  review  team  also  alluded  to  a  fourth  principle,  namely  that  the  proportion  of  votes  in  a  department  held  by  joint  appointments  should  be  small  enough  that  non-­‐stakeholders  cannot,  on  their  own,  drive  important  departmental  decisions.    

Assuming  these  four  principles  are  met,  integration  through  joint  appointments  might  be  a  politically  feasible  change  to  implement.  Not  only  does  it  entail  relatively  little  major  structural  change,  but  it  also  allows  department  stakeholders  to  have  some  agency  in  deciding  which  extra-­‐departmental  faculty  members  are  offered  joint  appointments.    

We  urge  caution,  however,  because  the  joint  appointment  model  has  been  advocated  for  the  social  sciences  since  at  least  the  late  1990s,  and  thus  far  it  has  met  with  limited  success.    Joint  appointments  have  been  adopted  extensively  in  one  field,  and  it’s  not  clear  that  the  dispersion  problem  has  been  solved.    In  addition,  joint  appointments  have  been  advocated  for  another  field,  and  have  met  with  some  resistance.  

Finally,  we  note  that  joint  appointments  and  a  Coordinating  Committee  seem  complementary,  and  perhaps  we  should  think  of  them  as  part  of  the  same  model.  In  particular,  if  different  units  in  the  field  had  a  more  coordinated  curriculum,  with  many  shared  courses  and  cross-­‐listed  courses,  then  there  would  already  be  a  teaching  stake  for  everyone.    (Consolidation  of  graduate  fields  would  also  help  on  this  dimension.)  Although  we  suspect  the  “stakeholder”  issue  more  often  comes  to  the  fore  in  decisions  about  hiring  and  promotion,  joint  responsibility  for  teaching  may  help  alleviate  the  perception  that  joint  appointments  do  not  have  as  high  of  a  stake  in  the  fate  of  the  receiving  unit.    

D-13