Wednesday, 30 August 2000
READING MATTERS Vol VI, No 2
Search News
Executive Committee is working to draft job
descriptions for our three searches, starting from the
descriptions that we submitted in requesting the lines. These
initial descriptions will be posted both on this site and by
e-mail as soon as we have them, and the department will meet on
September 7 to discuss, revise, and approve final wording for
these descriptions.
Department
Meeting: The
department will meet at 3:45 on Thursday, 7 September for final
consideration and approval of job descriptions for our three
searches. Final copy must be in by September 15 in order to
make the October Job Information List.
Money
Matters
It's now the case that just about any
request for funding sent anywhere on campus for just about any
purpose needs to be accompanied by a proposed budget, needs to be
routed through me for my endorsement and for English Department
"partnering" of funds, and then needs to be routed through the
dean's office. Requests that do not go through these steps are
uniformly sent back to us with instructions that we follow the
above procedure. If the department will not offer to cover part of
the requested funds, the dean is very unlikely to endorse the
request and/or contribute funds from the college.
Travel
Matters
Please remember to return to Gayle by Monday
September 11 the green sheets with your plans for travel in
2000-2001 to conferences and research libraries.
Office
Matters
Amy writes. . .
Just a reminder that the HP laser printer
has been moved out of the ZimanskyRoom and into 308 A (the package
room). We decided that the printer needed a new location because
it was in the way and there was some concern about
confidentiality. 308 A has become a sort of "utility" room,
housing a Mac computer and a typewriter. The computer is working,
and will soon be connected to the printer.
An Increasingly Good
Word to Know is "Interdisciplinary"
Dean Maxson has just announced a new program
to provide seed money for interdisciplinary undergraduate course
development.
This fall, the College will fund up to eight
proposals from its tenured and tenure-track faculty for the
development of new undergraduate interdisciplinary courses. For
each successful proposal, $5,000 will be allocated either as
support for summersalary and fringe benefits or as a discretionary
fund in support of the faculty member's teaching and research (to
be used for equipment, supplies, travel, or student assistance).
The course must be offered for the first time in Fall 2001 or
Spring 2002, and both the faculty member and his/her home
department must commit to offering the course at least one
additional time in the subsequent three years. (The call for
proposals will be repeated in Fall 2001, for courses to be offered
for the first time in 2002-03.)
By October 10, faculty must submit brief
proposals for new courses to Professor Helena Dettmer, Office of
Interdisciplinary Programs, 404 Jefferson Building. Proposals must
include the
coversheet available here.
Faculty members will develop their proposals in consultation with
the interdisciplinary program to be served by the course and with
their home department. Proposals will be reviewed by an ad hoc
faculty committee, and decisions will be announced in late
November.
The Seed Money Initiative is intended
specifically to support new courses in the College's
interdisciplinary academic programs,which depend on the interests
and expertise of faculty from many departments. These programs
include the BS in Environmental Science, the BA in Global Studies,
the BA in Literature, Science & the Arts, and the BA in
Russian, East European, & Eurasian Studies, as well as the
following interdisciplinary certificate and minor programs:
African Studies; Aging Studies; American Indian & Native
Studies; Book Studies/Book Arts & Technologies; Global Health
Studies; Latin American Studies; Medieval Studies; Museum Studies;
Philosophies & Ethics of Politics, Law & Economics
(PEOPLE); and Sexuality Studies. The College will also consider
proposals for interdisciplinary Honors Seminars (for first- and
second-year students).
The Seed Money Initiative will promote the
professional development of faculty and provide students with
courses on interdisciplinary topics of the most current societal
and scholarly interest. It is one method the College is using to
implement itsstrategic planning goal to "design initiatives that
support international and interdisciplinary education."
Fall
Party
The Fall English Department Party will be on
Sunday, 24 September at Garrett Stewart's from 4:00 to 6:00 PM. At
5:00 there will be a brief ceremony honoring Dee for being named
our first John C. Gerber Professor of English and honoring John
for lending his legend and his name to this professorship. More
information and invitations will be forthcoming.
Handbook for Liberal
Arts Faculty
Last year I suggested that this handbook
would start figuring in more and more things that we do. I think
that continues to be true. Assistant professors have already
learned how important its specifications are for review and
promotion. All of us now need to become more familiar with its
provisions for post-tenure peer review. In case you have not yet
memorized the handbook or have somehow misplaced your dog-eared
copy, it is available online at
http://www.uiowa.edu/~libarts/faculty/faculty_handbook/index.shtml
Obermann Center Summer
Seminar Announced
The University of Iowa Obermann Center for
Advanced Studiesannounces Obermann Fellowships for the Summer 2001
Research Seminar
Opera in Context: Interdisciplinary
Approaches to Creation, Performance, and Reception
Deadline: January 29, 2001
This interdisciplinary research seminar will
focus on the relationship between opera and the social worlds in
which, and for which, it was created. Scholars will address the
ways in which individual operas or operatic traditions have
shaped, and been shaped by, their publics and the cultural and
political circumstances in which they existed. New approaches to
opera and new problems in opera studies are particularly
encouraged.
A principal aim of the seminar will be to
bring together scholars drawn from several different disciplines,
for example: classics, dance, history, literary studies,
musicology, and theater arts. Topics to be addressed might include
anything that falls under the following categories: intersections
of stage representation and social contexts, transformations of
single works for different venues and audiences, operatic works
that spawn or respond to other operatic or non-operatic works,
performance practices that can be understood as integral to
operatic works rather than incidental to them, the politics of
opera on film, and reception issues.
Up to ten fellows to be selected, $2000
stipends, plus $500 for travel/housing expenses for visiting
scholars
Qualifications
* Applicants must hold a Ph.D. or
comparable professional degree.
* Applicants should be ready to produce
original, previously unpublished work for publication in a
volume and to participate in sessions devoted to readings,
individual papers, invited lectures, and special
events.
* Participants will be chosen in part to
provide sufficient range for a published collection of essays.
Some fellowships are reserved for University of Iowa
scholars.
Directors: Roberta M. Marvin, Associate
Professor and Head of Musicology; and Downing A. Thomas, Associate
Professor of French and Chair, Department of French and
Italian.
For more information see
http://www.uiowa.edu/~obermann/2001_summer.html
Departmental
Review
This year's review provides a number of
opportunities for us. It also may have some serious consequences
in terms of institutional support. The following document may help
us better understand this connection. The rhetoric is instructive
and sobering. If you're not interested in the entire document,
note that it concludes:
Strategic decisions
about units, based on quality, essential relationship, and
value involve five basic possibilities: strengthen, maintain,
downsize, phase out, or substitute with external services.
University of Iowa Criteria
for Institutional Enhancements and
Reductions
In aspiring to become one of
the best public research universities in the nation, the
University of Iowa has committed itself to continuous reassessment
of its quality and effectiveness. To accelerate progress toward
its institutional goals, the University must continually review
its various components and make appropriate adjustments in
allocation of resources, following well-defined criteria for
enhancement, maintenance, or reduction of specific programs and
services. In addition to these regularly scheduled reviews,
evaluations are also precipitated by special circumstances such as
changes in leadership or funding sources. In either situation, the
University follows the same procedures and applies the particular
criteria deemed appropriate for the unit or program under review.
In all evaluations, the University is guided by its core values,
as expressed in its 1996 strategic plan, Achieving Distinction
2000.
A cautionary note: although
quantitatively-driven or formula-based methods of analysis provide
essential data, they should not be the sole focus of the review
process; indeed, if used in isolation, they can even be
misleading. In virtually every case, the best basis for judging
whether a program or unit meets a particular criterion involves
assessing a combination of quantitative and qualitative
data.
The Criteria
In an organization as
complex as the University of Iowa, no single set of criteria can
apply equally to its hundreds of programs, units, and activities,
ranging along a continuum from the academic to the nonacademic. At
one end of the spectrum, for example, are academic departments
centering on scholarly disciplines; at the other end are units
providing basic nonacademic services, such as payroll and
purchasing. For simplicity's sake, academic and nonacademic
criteria are presented along two parallel tracks, with the
understanding that many units are hybrids that will draw criteria
first from one side and then from the other, as is appropriate to
each unit's particular mission and its contribution to the
University's overall mission of teaching, research, and
service.
For both academic and
nonacademic programs, criteria designed to set priorities are
divided into two classes: primary and secondary. Primary criteria
are of the highest priority; secondary criteria come under
consideration only if the primary criteria have first been fully
satisfied.
Primary criteria
include
the quality of a
program and
its centrality to the
University's role and mission.
These two criteria are of
the highest priority, and their assessment should represent the
first phase of any program evaluation. Once the quality and
centrality of programs are established, a set of secondary
criteria may be applicable. Secondary criteria are "modifiers" for
evaluations based on quality and centrality.
Secondary criteria
include
external
impact,
potential for excellence,
and
cost
effectiveness.
The secondary criteria come
into consideration when the primary criteria reveal problems of
quality or centrality in a program, or when it is necessary to
distinguish among programs with similar levels of quality and
centrality.
Primary criteria
include
the quality of a
unit;
its essential
relationship to the University's role and mission;
and
value
offered.
These three criteria are of
the highest priority, and their assessment should represent the
first phase of any unit evaluation. Once the quality, essential
relationship, and value of units are established, secondary
criteria may be applicable. Secondary criteria are "modifiers" for
evaluations based on quality, essential relationship and value.
Secondary criteria
include
potential for
excellence.
Primary
Criteria
Quality
Judgments of quality,
adhering to the academic peer-review process, are essential to any
program evaluation. This assessment requires program reviews
undertaken with substantial faculty involvement. Evaluations of
undergraduate and graduate programs should incorporate standards
specific to the discipline or program and also involve a
comparison to the best programs in the University, state, and
nation. In the case of graduate programs, comparisons with the
very best programs within the Big Ten and nationally are quite
important. Top graduate programs nationally should anchor the high
end of the quality standard applied to graduate programs within
the University. As a general rule, departments should emphasize a
subset of the areas within their discipline and strive toward the
highest level of quality at both undergraduate and graduate levels
in those areas. Even a department too small as a whole to reach
lofty national distinction should be expected to develop subareas
that achieve such a level of excellence.
While specific indicators of
quality may vary somewhat across programs, the following seem
applicable to virtually any program:
the characteristics
of the student body attracted to the program (e.g.,
qualifications of entering students, the success with which the
program competes for students on a state and national scale,
the diversity of students in the program);
the quality of the
program's faculty (e.g., teaching effectiveness, published
scholarship in major journals, exhibitions or performances in
major forums, noteworthy awards and honors for teaching,
research, and service, the success of efforts to compete for
research grants where applicable, and competition for current
faculty from other universities;
the degree to which a
department's programs or subareas have reached a high ranking,
nationally;
the quality of the
curriculum at undergraduate and graduate levels;
the quality of student
placements in jobs, including academic positions or other
educational programs, after graduation; and
post-graduation student
evaluations of programs, especially evaluations of teaching
effectiveness (e.g. Registrar surveys, surveys by the
department or program)
Centrality
Centrality to the
University's role and mission&emdash;to the goals and Areas of
Focus delineated in the University's Strategic Plan&emdash;is of
utmost importance. Judgments about centrality should be based on
the degree to which the body of knowledge created and disseminated
by a program or discipline is critical or necessary to teaching,
research, and/or service at the University. The centrality
criterion encourages us to raise questions about the existing
organization of knowledge embedded in the structure of the
University.
Indicators of centrality
include
the degree to which
a program contributes to the University's role and
mission;
the contribution the
program makes to the goals of the Strategic
Plan;
the degree to which a
program contributes to the seven Institutional Goals in
Achieving Distinction 2000 (comprehensive strength in
undergraduate programs, premier graduate and professional
programs in a significant number of areas, a faculty of
national and international distinction, distinguished research
and scholarship, a culturally diverse and inclusive university
community, strong ties between the University and external
constituencies, and a high-quality academic and working
environment);
the degree to which a
program contributes to the five Areas of Focus in Achieving
Distinction 2000 (the arts; basic science and technological
innovation; human and environmental health; literature,
discourse, and critical analysis; and social
change);
the extent of
interdependence and synergy with other University programs, as
suggested by the number and proportion of nonmajors served by
its curriculum and the program's contribution to productive
interdisciplinary research efforts;
the extent of the
program's contribution to general education requirements for
undergraduates (e.g., its share of total general education
enrollment); and
student demand, as
measured (at both the undergraduate and graduate levels, and
with comparison to peer institutions) by
number of
majors,
number of applicants
to the program and applicant/admit ratio,
total enrollment and
enrollment trends, and
degrees granted by the
program.
The above indicators should
provide a sound basis for making difficult and interpretive
judgments of centrality to the University's role and mission.
Judgments of quality
are essential to any unit evaluation. Evaluations of units should
incorporate standards specific to their function and also involve
a comparison to the very best similar units within the Big Ten and
nationally. As a general rule, larger units should emphasize a
subset of the areas within their function and strive toward the
highest level of quality in those areas.
The most important basis for
assessments of quality consists of the judgments made by clients
and customers of a unit's function. Also vitally important to
consider are the University's periodic reviews of a unit. These
internally-generated reviews combine substantial campus
involvement with the advice of external reviewers, supplemented by
essential dialogue between a Director and the unit's
staff.
While specific indicators of
quality may vary somewhat across units, the following seem
applicable to virtually any unit:
the degree to which
the unit meets or exceeds its customers'
expectations;
the evaluation of the
unit's function by customers. clients, peers, and
colleagues;
the quality and rigor of
the unit's self-imposed annual performance
standards;
the quality of the unit's
staff (e.g. recognition by University customers; leadership in
relevant professional associations, noteworthy awards and
honors for service, and competition for current staff from
other universities and the private sector);
effectiveness of staff
performance appraisal process; and
the degree to which a
unit or subareas have achieved local, state or peer
recognition.
Essential
Relationship
Essential Relationship to
the University's role and mission&emdash;to the goals and Areas of
Focus delineated in the University's Strategic Plan and in the
first level unit's plan&emdash;is of utmost importance. Judgments
about essential relationship should be based on the degree to
which the unit's function is critical or necessary to teaching,
research, and/or service at the University or is a requirement of
external sponsors/agencies. The essential relationship criterion
encourages us to raise questions about the existing organization
of support services embedded in the structure of the
University.
Indicators of essential
relationship include
the degree to which
there are no substitutes or more efficient
alternatives;
the degree to which a
unit is essential in meeting regulatory requirements, other
external mandates or accountability measures;
the degree to which a
unit contributes to the University's role and
mission;
the degree to which a
unit contributes to the seven Institutional Goals in Achieving
Distinction 2000 (comprehensive strength in undergraduate
programs, premier graduate and professional programs in a
significant number of areas, a faculty of national and
international distinction, distinguished research and
scholarship, a culturally diverse and inclusive university
community, strong ties between the University and external
constituencies, and a high-quality academic and working
environment).
the degree to which a
unit contributes to the five Areas of Focus in Achieving
Distinction 2000 (the arts; basic science and technological
innovation; human and environmental health; literature,
discourse, and critical analysis; and social change);
the degree to which the
unit fulfills its goals and first-level unit strategic goals;
and
the extent of
interdependence and synergy with other University and academic
programs and nonacademic units.
Value Offered
Value refers to the
relationship between cost and the quality of the unit's services
or products. Units of similarly high quality may differ sharply in
value because of significant differences in cost. A unit's cost
may be high because, for example, costly equipment is required.
Others may be less cost effective because of management problems
or because they are operating at less than optimum scale. Cost
effectiveness should not be confused with the question of the
savings which may be realized from reduction, elimination, or
substitution. Cost savings are a result of, not a determinate of,
reallocation decisions.
Major indicators of value
offered include
the quality level
required by customers or external stakeholders;
the ratio between cost
and quality;
availability of
substitute services with equal or greater value;
a high level of cost
awareness within the unit;
an effective system of
financial control and accountability within the
unit;
the use of strategic
planning and resource management to meet emerging operating
needs;
percentage of program
funds derived from the General Fund, or (where appropriate) the
program's overall financial contribution to the University, and
to its own adminstrative costs, from sources other than the
General Fund;
and cost contrast with
substitutes or peers.
Strategic decisions
about programs, based on quality and centrality, involve four
basic possibilities: strengthen, maintain, downsize, or phase out.
Such decisions need to treat quality and centrality as matters of
degree and also consider the secondary criteria, which may lead
one to consider refinements, adjustments, or modifications of the
strategies indicated by assessments of quality and centrality.
Secondary criteria also are a basis for making distinctions among
programs at similar levels of quality and centrality.
External
Impact
The University must
carefully consider existing and prospective programs having or
capable of having a critical impact on external constituencies or
"stakeholders" (e.g., citizens of Iowa). In this assessment,
impact on the state is at least as important to consider as impact
upon the region and nation. While this criterion should not
override the quality of teaching and research in the program or
its centrality to the University mission and Strategic Plan,
programs that make extremely important contributions to the state
should be given special credit on that basis.
The primary indicators of
external impact are
the availability of
comparable programs at other colleges and universities in the
state, and
the existing or potential
contribution to the state and nation based on the skills and
educational backgrounds required in the workforce of the
future.
Governmental agencies, such
as the U.S. Department of Labor, have projections regarding future
workforce needs. These projections ought to be consulted when this
criterion is assessed.
Potential for
Excellence
It is vital that the
University be willing to invest in programs with the clear
potential for significant improvement to the point of achieving
national stature. A program of relatively lower quality than some
others but with a recent record of impressive accomplishment and
strong leadership may prove to be a more worthy investment than a
stagnating higher quality program. Attention to programs "on the
move" and emerging fields in which modest investments will yield
large increments of quality would appear to make a great deal of
strategic sense.
Some indicators of a
program's potential for excellence include
national and
international shifts which open up new opportunities for
high-quality teaching and research, and
rapid growth in faculty
quality, as indicated by
quality of
recent faculty hiring (e.g., amount and kind of competition
for them) and increased national visibility of faculty,
rate of publication in
top professional journals,
significant editorial
activities of faculty (e.g., editorships, editorial boards,
NSF panels),
evidence of outstanding
teaching,
in some disciplines, a
growth of external (competitive) research funds,
and
degree that a department
is effectively focusing its faculty effort on what it can do
best.
Cost
Effectiveness
Cost effectiveness refers to
the relationship between funds invested and academic benefits
derived. Some programs may be inherently more expensive on a
per-unit basis because, for example, costly equipment or an
unusually high faculty-student ratio is required. Others may be
less cost effective because of management problems or because they
are operating at less than optimum scale. Cost effectiveness
should not be confused with the question of the savings which may
be realized from reduction or elimination. Cost savings are a
result, not a determinate, of reallocation
decisions.
Major indicators of cost
effectiveness include
expenditures per
credit hour,
FTE faculty on state
funds per major, per nonmajor, and per total
enrollment;
FTE Staff (P&S,
Merit) on state funds per FTE faculty;
cost comparison with
peers;
use of effective systems
of financial management; and
other indicators as
appropriate to discipline.
Secondary
Criteria
Strategic decisions about
units, based on quality, essential relationship, and value involve
five basic possibilities: strengthen, maintain, downsize, phase
out, or substitute with external services.
Such decisions need
to treat quality, essential relationship, and value as matters of
degree and also consider the secondary criteria, which may lead
one to consider refinements, adjustments, or modifications of the
strategies indicated by assessments of quality, essential
relationship, and value. Secondary criteria also are a basis for
making distinctions among units at similar levels of quality,
essential relationship, and value.
Potential for
Excellence
It is vital that the
University be willing to invest in units with the clear potential
for significant improvement. A unit of relatively lower quality
than some others but with a recent record of impressive
accomplishment and strong leadership may prove to be a more worthy
investment than a stagnating higher quality unit. Attention to
units "on the move" and emerging fields in which modest
investments will yield large increments of quality would appear to
make a great deal of strategic sense. A potential for excellence
also can be indicated by a unit's ability to be flexible and
innovative in response to a changing external environment and
customer requirements.
Some indicators of a unit's
potential for excellence include
Organizational
awareness and responsiveness to external data and trends (work
process, structure, goals);
State, national,
international developments which open up new opportunities for
high-quality service; and
rapid growth in staff
quality, as indicated by
recognition by
UI users of unit's excellence
accomplishment of
strategic objectives and goals
quality of staff
hiring (e.g., amount and kind of competition for
them)
evidence of
outstanding service
degree that a unit is
effectively focusing its staff effort on what it can do
best
measurement against
benchmarks;
ability to adapt to
meet customer needs.
Principles of
Implementation
In the course of considering
program enhancements and reductions, two constraining principles
must be maintained. The first is that the impact on students of a
program reduction will be minimized by ensuring that all students
enrolled in the program can complete their degrees on schedule.
(It is also important to
consider student impact in the case of program enhancements.) The
second is that the impact on faculty and academic freedom will be
minimized by security for tenured faculty and the employment of
neutral principles in determining which, if any, non-tenured
faculty will be retained. In the course of considering unit
enhancements and reductions, the principles of consultation,
accountability, and communication will be central in guiding
decisions and subsequent actions. Career status and union contract
provisions will be respected. When appropriate, every reasonable
effort will be made to provide staff with the training necessary
to facilitate relocation.
Consideration for Program
Change and Funding Reallocation
Fundamentally, there are two
routes by which programs can come to be considered for changes in
funding or structure. The first is through the University's
ordinary process of regularly scheduled reviews, usually at five-
to seven-year intervals which in the case of academic units are
associated with the reaccreditation process. The second is by way
of special circumstances requiring unscheduled reviews to
accelerate progress toward the University's institutional goals.
In either case, the review follows the same procedures, and the
outcome of the review forms the basis for all decisions on changes
in structure or enhancements or reductions in funding. It is
recognized that proposals for reductions or elimination of support
from the General Fund merit especially close scrutiny and require
careful attention to all affected individuals and programs.
Regular Review
All departments, programs,
units, and offices of The University of Iowa are scrutinized on a
specified cycle of reviews that varies across type of
administrative structure and the nature of the unit, but usually
involves a process of self-study, evaluation by internal and/or
external reviewers, and a response by the administrator
responsible for the unit or program. Every step requires written
documentation and is reported to the Provost or the Vice President
in charge of the unit or program. Although most reviews will
result in recommendations that can and should be addressed within
the overall resources of the responsible administrative unit,
administrators receiving evaluations may, as part of their
response, identify programs or units that merit consideration for
University-level review. Through the Provost or the appropriate
Vice President, such programs can be brought to the Strategic
Planning Steering Group for consideration. Again, in most cases,
the Steering Group will recommend that any changes be handled
within the primary administrative unit. However, in some cases,
the Steering Group may agree that there exists a significant
opportunity for advancing University-wide goals or for
reallocating resources to other needs, according to the existing
criteria, and seek further information.
Unscheduled reviews
A number of unexpected,
sudden changes can necessitate review or close examination of a
program or unit, for example, changes in accreditation, external
funding, leadership, legal requirements, regulatory compliance,
and shifts in external needs or priorities. In addition, planned
changes in one segment of the University can have consequences for
other programs and units, requiring movement of resources and
responsibilities. As with regular reviews, most unanticipated
changes are appropriately managed within divisions of the
University, but if the magnitude of the financial change is large
or the impact of the program or unit extends outside the division,
University-wide review by the Steering Group is warranted.
It is assumed that all
of the following steps will be followed as expeditiously as
possible, but with due consideration for appropriate consultation
and the amount of time necessary to gather information. As
described above, these procedures apply only to reviews that come
under consideration by the Steering Group.
Step 1
On a quarterly basis, the
Provost and Vice Presidents will report to the Steering Group the
outcomes of regular reviews and recommend which programs or units
merit additional consideration for enhancement or reductions. As
circumstances for unscheduled reviews warrant, proposals or
information about programs undergoing unexpected changes should be
brought to the attention of the Steering Group by the Provost or a
Vice President.
Step 2
If preliminary discussion
indicates further review is necessary, the President appoints a
subcommittee to investigate, provide a summary of relevant
information, consult as appropriate and/or instructed, and outline
possible alternative courses of action.
Step 3
At a later meeting, the
Steering Group discusses the alternative actions and makes a
recommendation to the President and the Vice
Presidents.
Step 4
If the recommendation is for
program termination or a significant reduction, the program or
unit will be consulted and permitted sufficient time to prepare
any additional comment, information, or suggestions. The time
period will be negotiated with all affected parties and a
completion date stipulated. Ample opportunity will be provided for
peer review and comments from the University community. Before
making a recommendation to the President for action, the Steering
Group, in a timely manner, will review all relevant information,
including comments from members of the units, clients and/or
students, administrators, and others, as appropriate.
Step 5
The President and Vice
Presidents, with any additional consultation they deem
appropriate, decide which action to pursue.
Department
Meeting
Thursday, September 7
at 3:45 PM in the Gerber Lounge
Department Meeting to discuss and finalize job descriptions
for 2000-2001 searches
READINGS, LECTURES, WORKSHOPS, AND
CONFERENCES
Sep 6 "When Students Write" A Center for Teaching workshop
in 345 IMU from 12-1 pm. More info at http://www.uiowa.edu/~centeach
or by calling 335-6048.
Sep 7 "Documenting Teaching" A Center for Teaching workshop
in 345 IMU from 12-1 pm. More info at http://www.uiowa.edu/~centeach
or by calling 335-6048.
Sep 9 Miriam
Gilbert
will present "Shakespeare: Side by Side" in the
Saturday Scholars: Tailgating for the Mind series in 40 Schaeffer
at 10:00 am
Sep 21-22 Deidre Lynch Freedman
Lecture and Seminar
Oct 1
Oct 5 John
Kasson's lecture, "Strongmen and Escape Artists: The
Male Body and the Crisis of Modernity in American Culture,
1893-1917" is set for for Thurs. Oct. 5 at 4 p.m. in the Gerber
Lounge
Oct 6 Kasson will
deliver another talk, "Houdini's Body, Magic, Masculinity, and
Modernity" at noon in American Studies, 204 JB. Brown bag lunches
will be served.
Oct 6 Joy Kasson
will speak at 4:00 pm in American Studies 204 JB on Buffalo Bill
-- no title yet.
Oct 7 Lauren
Rabinovitz will present "Yesteryear's Wonderlands:
How Amusement Parks Introduced Modernism to America" in the
Saturday Scholars: Tailgating for the Mind series in 40 Schaeffer
at 10:00 am
Oct 12-13 Herbert Tucker
Freedman Lecture and
Seminar
Oct 14 Horace Porter
will present "all that Jazz: Louis Armstrong and
Duke Ellington" in the Saturday Scholars: Tailgating for the Mind
series in 40 Schaeffer at 10:00 am
DEADLINES TO KEEP YOU FROM ATTENDING
READINGS, LECTURES, & ETC.
Sep 1 Applications for teaching in the Saturday and Evening
Class program in the second semester are due. Amy has application
materials.
Sep 1 - Final date for making changes in the Schedule of
Courses for the second semester of 1999-2000. Changes or
additional course information should be given to Sharry Lenhart or
John Harper by this date.
Sep 11 Travel plans for 2000-2001 due to Gayle
Sep 15 Proposals for semester assignment due in chair's
office
Sep 22 Proposals for Faculty and Global Scholars due in
chair's office
Oct 1 Application Deadline for NEH 2001 Summer Stipends. NEH
Summer Stipends support two months of full-time work on projects
that will make a significant contribution to the humanities. For
more information about this and other NEH programs please
see http://www.neh.gov/pdf/guidelines/fellowships.pdf
Oct 27 Applications for Instructional Improvement Awards due
in the Provost's Office. Information available at www.uiowa.edu/~cot