Volume IV: What works, what matters, what lasts

Investing in faculty, programs, and facilities

November 24, 2004

Careful campus planning links the relationship between investing in faculty, curricular and co-curricular programs, and facilities. The essays in this posting address strategic planning as an organizational tool to ensure capital investments are made wisely, consonant with institutional priorities for the future. They describe:

  • the need to invest in faculty at all career stages, so they remain current in their field; are able to translate their research interests into learning experiences for their students; are at ease with emerging technologies and pedagogies; can connect to other disciplines within and beyond STEM fields; and are conversant with research on how students learn. The essay from PKAL, Investing in faculty: Ways and means, describes how "supporting costs incurred in building a strong faculty (individually and collectively exemplars of the scholarly tradition) should be a part of a larger institutional budgeting and investing strategy."

  • the integrated planning approach- linking academic planning, campus planning and budgetary planning- in ways that reflect the institutional mission and vision, again using the budget as a planning tool. The essay by Arthur Lidsky outlines steps to give the same kind of attention to the capital investment of land and buildings, as is made to the endowment.

  • another essay, by Richard Green, describes the process of budgeting for STEM facilities from articulating the institutional and departmental missions through the phases of programming, design development and bid/award.

It is PKAL's conviction that, increasingly, the strength and character of undergraduate programs in mathematics and the various fields of science will be recognized as primary indicators of the quality of a college or university. Making requisite capital investments in faculty and facilities are essential steps to achieving institutional distinction.