MEMO TO: Academic Affairs Task Forces

FROM: A. Jerry Benson on behalf of the Academic Council

RE: Consideration of Task Force Recommendations

DATE: November 4, 1999

Each of the task forces has been asked to make recommendations regarding targeted areas for future development at the University. As previously noted, these areas may run the gamut from sharing information/ideas-connections among existing programs, to the development of new academic programs. The recommendations of the task forces are to be presented to the Academic Council. Prior to definitive action on any of the recommendations presented, the Academic Council will need to decide which ones to pursue. The Council, therefore, wanted to communicate the criteria they would use in such deliberations. These criteria are presented below. The intent of presenting these criteria at this time is not to curtail the creativity of the task forces or constrain their activity in any way, but simply to communicate those factors that will come into play in decision-making later on in the process.

Academic Task Forces --Criteria for Targeting Potential Programs
(adopted by Academic Council, November 1999)

• fit with the mission of the institution
  --unique niche/assessing our competitiveness in this area
  --enhances the quality/appeal of academic affairs at institution; compliments/enhances existing programs
  --potential to move the institution in desired direction of development
  
• fit with our students (potential audience)
  --of interest
  --nature of program fits with intellectual level of our students/challenging
• predicted environment/market
  --national/international scene => societal needs, employment opportunities, industry/profession trends
  --state/local scene -needs of Commonwealth, especially those that might receive budgetary or other resource priorities that might offset funding for a program
• supportive environment for program to develop/function at level of quality
  --nature of cross program/disciplinary involvement
  --builds on/fit with existing strengths/programs
  --fit with location of JMU (e.g easily accessible to agencies/corporations for collaborative activity, natural site for research/intervention like Chesapeake Bay watershed, etc.)
• resources - capability to mount a quality program
  --needs of program/activity (faculty, operating, facilities)
  --existing => infrastructure, sharing/pooling resources (faculty, space, equipment), potential for modifying existing programs
  --potential => state, grants, partnerships with corporations/industry/agencies
• likelihood of sustained support