The University's self-study appropriately notes that, "At the heart of the institutional transformation lies the reconceptualization of the faculty's roles and rewards" because they "directly reflect the institution's values and priorities." The nexus of the intended reconceptualization is stated as the creation of a "faculty reward system" that will establish "a more effective balance among teaching, research and service." It is apparent that the redirection of the University could hardly succeed in the absence of a modified reward system for faculty that in word and in practice moves the University from a research-heavy emphasis--typical, even universal, for institutions classified as research--to one that seriously values teaching; this is the crux of the proclaimed student-centered research University.

Two significant issues flow from this basic challenge: process and implementation. As to process, the University's efforts to improve the quality of the undergraduate experience predates the 1990's, but indisputably the enhanced attention to undergraduate teaching was fueled by the newly appointed Chancellor in 1991. A series of rapidly issued reports underscored the urgency of upgrading teaching (and advising, as well) in the hierarchy of University values. Toward this end, the schools and colleges were asked to formulate and submit plans. In addition, University Senate committees produced their own recommendations. However, the University Senate, as a whole, played a more general role in this process. Even so, early on in the process, a "sense of the Senate" resolution was passed that lent the Senate's approval to the general strategic reorientation.

In implementation, it appears that the University is accomplishing much of what it has set out to do in the recalibration of the faculty reward system. This has not come about easily or without opposition. Nevertheless, it seems that the University has managed to "turn the battleship" and in a relatively short period of time, at that. The evidence for this proposition is scattered, but, taken together, persuasive. For example, the Diamond & Adam's "Changing Priorities" report (1995) contrasts both the preferences for and the perceptions of the University's actual direction regarding its commitments to teaching and to research in 1989 with those of 1995. On the basis of surveys of deans, associate and assistant deans, unit heads and regular faculty members, the movement from an academic value system tilted toward research in the direction of valuing teaching equally is manifest.

This finding is bolstered by many comments from those interviewed during the team visit. Conversations with junior and senior faculty members, with members of tenure and promotion committees, with other faculty members and with deans all pointed to a significant shift. Further, the standards and procedures for promotion and tenure have begun to be revised in the schools and colleges to reflect the importance to be attached to teaching. Indeed, we heard no serious dissent from the view that the change was real, penetrating beyond the mere rhetorical embrace of teaching and learning. Clearly, more evidence of teaching effectiveness is now required than previously sufficed.

This is not to say that the process of redirection is complete. It is indeed a work in progress. But the shift in the direction of an important upgrade for teaching is unmistakable. A parallel observation is crucial: no one suggested that the enhanced valuation of teaching meant that less was expected of faculty in terms of their research productivity and scholarship. At least two areas of concern flow from this perception: (1) faculty, particularly probationary faculty, are subjected to intense pressure to demonstrate a strong record both of teaching and research; (2) although the formula widely mentioned assigns weights of 40% each to teaching and to research and 20% to service, no one seemed to believe that as much as a 20% weight for service was either accurate or desirable. In fact, concern was expressed on several occasions that the dual emphasis on teaching and research might drive faculty away from service activities.

In sum, while no one contends that a consensus has been reached among faculty on the critical issue of modifying the faculty reward structure, it appears that important progress in this direction has been made. Without such progress, the realization of a "student-centered research University" would be difficult to achieve.

The process of moving the faculty toward "student-centeredness" is conditioned on supporting faculty adequately in a variety of ways.

Syracuse has taken a number of steps to strengthen the interest in, and visible commitment to, undergraduate teaching among its already talented faculty. Many different projects capture the needs and attention of many different people. One broad result of these projects is particularly significant: in discipline after discipline, faculty now feel comfortable, indeed validated, talking about their teaching experience with colleagues in ways they would not have a decade ago. Our attention was drawn to the wisdom of a new request that a brief reflection on the connection between one's scholarly or creative achievements and one's teaching be included in annual faculty reports. The evaluation of teaching in every department, and the review of evaluations by departmental colleagues, add a public dimension to a previously private activity and brings individuals' needs to the table.

The Meredith Professorships, the signature program at Syracuse for collegial visibility of teaching, and the Tolley Professorship may do still more for the collegial improvement of teaching. The current holders of these distinguished posts add luster to them by their imagination, zest and varied focus on fundamental elements in student learning. They point as well to the value of supporting the self-discovered needs of individual teachers, rather than merely delivering tips and technologies separate from a "teachable moment," and they confirm the need for more time and appropriate sites, such as Gateway Fellows' lunches, for discussing the nitty-gritty issues of teaching. The work of the Tolley and Meredith professors should, no doubt, expand in concentric circles. And the monetary value of the Meredith Professorships, beyond a gesture, is a coup of which Syracuse should be proud.

Other programs, ranging from the Chancellor's Fund for Innovation to Syracuse University's Teaching Consultancy, deserve more attention and praise than space allows.

The expectations of the Meredith Professors are substantial; their workloads should be renegotiated to release enough time from prior obligations to fulfill new ones effectively.

A prompt review of mentoring programs for young faculty is necessary, leading to a plan for coordination among levels and reduction of duplication.

Tolley-style professorships for the sciences and for the social sciences and related professional fields would be highly desirable, particularly if external supporters could be found.

As Syracuse reemphasizes its two-pronged mission of student-centeredness and research excellence, citation of the Boyer scheme of multiple "scholarships" may blur careful planning and direction of faculty work toward recognizable objectives. A moratorium of several years on the use of the scheme, after which its helpfulness could be re-evaluated, might be considered.

Related to compensation is the size of "start-up" packages made available to new hires, especially in the science and engineering sectors. Here the University must be attentive to the competitive nature of start-up packages in its efforts to recruit strong new faculty members.

Syracuse University, though financially ripe to rely more heavily on contingent faculty, has generally resisted whatever temptations may have surfaced. The use of contingent faculty varies considerably from one academic unit to another; staffing decisions presumably are delegated to the schools and colleges, so different strategies undoubtedly prevail. However, the overall picture is one of resisting the national trend. As the authorizations to fill academic lines lost in the downsizing become a reality, the University would do well to continue to stress the importance of a regular full-time faculty.

Like most of higher education, women historically were underrepresented at Syracuse University, especially in the rank of full professor. Continuing attention to this issue and progress in this regard would be well-advised.