Foreword

Introduction

The University of Minnesota aspires to become one of the top three public research universities in the world within the next 10 years. 

This aspiration – and the intensive strategic planning, performance-based academic and administrative initiatives, and commitment to continuous improvement that inform it – is at the very heart of the University’s preparations for the 2005-06 comprehensive evaluation of the Twin Cities campus by the Higher Learning Commission (HLC) of the North Central Association of Colleges and Schools.

This self-study report reflects the wide-ranging and vigorous consultation, review, analysis, assessment, and decision making that is taking place among faculty, students, staff, administrators, Regents, alumni, state policy makers, and other constituencies about the aspirations and future of the University of Minnesota.

In that spirit of robust debate and striving for excellence in teaching and learning, research and discovery, and public engagement, the University welcomes the opportunity presented by the Commission’s independent perspective. 

The Commission’s criteria offer a useful framework for University constituencies to assess the Twin Cities campus’s performance in pursuit of the University’s broader mission. 

Further, the visiting team’s assessment of the Twin Cities campus’s performance with respect to the Commission’s criteria will provide invaluable guidance to improving the University’s performance, just as it did as a result of the last comprehensive evaluation in 1995-96.

return to section menu

Self-Study and HLC Evaluation Goals

The University has identified five goals for a successful 2005-06 self-study and comprehensive evaluation:

• Provide a comprehensive overview for the Commission’s visiting team and internal and external audiences of the University’s Twin Cities campus; a current evaluation of its strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and challenges; a clear description of its aspirational vision and goals for the future; and a forthright assessment of its progress toward those goals.

• Advance the President’s and Board of Regents’ strategic directions and priorities and integrate the self-study findings and the visiting team’s recommendations into the University’s ongoing continuous improvement efforts.

• Develop a high-quality self-study report and ancillary materials that meet the visiting team’s needs and present information and evidence in a clear, concise manner to maximize the team’s ability to provide helpful advice to the University. 

• Model an effective, efficient consultation and decision-making process for the University that is characterized by clear accountability, concise communication, and leveraging of technology.

• Achieve unqualified continuing accreditation, with no follow-up focused visits and no progress reports until the next comprehensive evaluation in 2015-16.

return to section menu

Organization of the Report

The self-study report can be read as a stand-alone print document that provides a rich, comprehensive assessment of the Twin Cities campus.  It is also available in a more robust on-line version or in CD-ROM format that provides direct electronic links to more detailed, drill-down information on virtually any University topic of interest to the reader. 

The Higher Learning Commission’s visiting team will be provided with all three versions in advance of its October 31 – November 2, 2005 site visit, and, while on campus, team members will be provided individual wireless laptop computers for their exclusive use.

The self-study report is divided into four major narrative sections, a summary, appendices, and an index. Throughout the report the subject matter connection to the five Higher Learning Commission criteria and core components are indicated in brackets, e.g., refers to Criterion 3, core component “a.”

President's Overview: Transforming the University:  In this introductory section, University of Minnesota President Robert Bruininks sets forth the University’s transformational vision and provides a context for the strategic planning process that informs this self-study report.

Part 1:  Institutional Profile:  Part 1 provides a brief description of the Twin Cities campus and its academic units, its distinctive qualities, mission and governance mechanisms, administrative and academic structures, and budgeting and planning systems.

Part 2:  Accreditation History: Part 2 reviews the history of the Twin Cities campus’s affiliation with the Commission and the broad array of programs accredited by specialized accrediting agencies, provides a summary of the 1996 comprehensive evaluation and the 2000 focused visit conducted by the North Central Association, and comments on the current status of concerns raised and recommendations offered during the 1996 and 2000 visits.

Part 3:  Aligning for Institutional Excellence:  Part 3 is the core of the self-study report.  In the context of the University’s vision to become one of the world’s top three public research universities, Part 3 describes seven key challenges, identified by the self-study steering committee, that the University has faced and is facing in its quest for continued excellence, provides examples of efforts to assess and improve institutional performance, and describes future actions that must be undertaken to enhance quality. 

The self-study committee identified these chal-lenges as an appropriate way to discuss and de-scribe recurring themes in the University¿s recent history. The seven challenges provide a framework for “telling the University’s story” in the context of the Commission’s criteria:

1. Enhancing the University’s leadership among public research universities in the world.
2. Identifying, aligning, and supporting areas of core academic excellence.
3. Strengthening the student experience at all levels.
4. Strengthening the University’s governance structures, policies, and practices.
5. Promoting a culture of continuous improvement and accountability. 
6. Embracing public engagement concepts, practices, and assessment. 
7. Leveraging University technology expertise to strengthen performance.

Summary:  The Summary lists the Commission criteria and core components and directs the reader to specific sections of the self-study that support the analysis.

Appendices:  The appendices include rosters of administrative and academic leaders and their contact information, status reports on a variety of federal compliance issues required by the Commission, and a guide to the Electronic Resource Room.

return to section menu

Self-Study Steering Committee

In June 2004, then-Provost Christine Maziar appointed a self-study steering committee in preparation for the 2005-06 comprehensive evaluation.  Her charge to committee members was to:

• Provide advice and counsel on the re-accreditation project.

• Review progress on the development of the self-study document.

• Identify people who have knowledge and historical perspective on key issues.

• Identify and provide documents that can inform the self-study.

• Help ensure broad campus consultation through existing governance processes and groups.

• Champion the re-accreditation project and the development of the self-study.

Transforming the University

Return to top of page