3. The quality of academic achievement at the GSD.

One Committee member expressed dismay over the mediocrity which he considered characteristic of both faculty and student output at the GSD. Other members concurred with his impression of a pervading boredom and lack of excitement resulting from a lack of a sense of purpose. Members were very concerned that 1974 GSD questionnaire results indicate only 39 per cent of GSD graduates as a whole considered their GSD training "very useful," while 49 per cent found it "somewhat useful" and 12 per cent found it of little or no use. One member suggested, however, that the current students' complaints about the quality of their training should be interpreted cautiously. Students had explained to her privately that they wanted to tell the Committee what was wrong with the School in the group meetings, but assured her they were getting a great education. Members did see a need for more faculty concern for what they considered to be the legitimate role of students in decision-making in the School. The declining rate of increase in applications made to the GSD was also cause for alarm among Committee members. Stated in the Dean's Report to the Visiting Committee, May, 1975: "Starting with 1970/71, the annual percentage increase in applications has been 20.4, 23.1, 22.5, 14.2, and this year 6.8." One member remarked that applications are rising in schools involved in environmental issues. Another expressed the opinion that schools which teach architecture only are better in terms of professional training. (The Chairman asked that comparative statistics on rates of application to other schools, such as Rice, Minnesota, Washington [Seattle], and Washington University-St. Louis, be included in the Visiting Committee's Report. He asked also that the Committee consider in its Report the opinions of leading academics and others in design-related fields about the future direction of architecture.)

One Committee member remarked that "this is the least distinguished faculty in the history of the GSD." Other members saw a lack of intellectual disagreement in the faculty and were particularly critical of the passiveness of faculty members present at the faculty session. (It was pointed out that the essence department chairmen at this session may have had an inhibiting influence on junior faculty, and it was suggested that in the future the Committee should meet with faculty alone without chairmen.) Another member suggested that low faculty salaries prevent the School from attracting top quality faculty, and cause existing faculty to work professionally outside the School, thus decreasing their contact with students. He proposed that the GSD undertake design contracts for outside interests. This, he said, might result in attracting faculty to the School, as well as encouraging faculty and students to work together on specific projects.

There was some discussion about the status of the planning department. Committee members considered the resignation of the Chairman, Professor Mann, to be indicative of a floundering, a lack of direction in the department. In addition, members sensed that the Committee was being used by both faculty and students to promote the appointment of one of the candidates for the Chairmanship. One member said that he had been forced to consider the candidate inappropriate for the position. There was a sense that the Committee was disturbed that the candidate would not bring a background that would create a new purpose or mission in the department, but also that they considered it beyond their responsibility to make any recommendations in this area.

(Assistant's note: The Committee agreed to include in its Report reference to the School's implementation of its affirmative action program. Discussion on this subject with a group of faculty and students is reported in the Addendum. In addition, the Report will include reference to the student-expressed need for a school-wide Placement Office, in particular, the funding implications of creating such a service. Discussion with planning students of the department's Professional Development Office is also reported in the Addendum.) Respectfully submitted,   Julia G. Fox   Staff Assistant to the Visiting Committee

Addendum: Discussions which preceded the Executive Session.

The Committee met with the Dean, the departmental chairmen, and other faculty members, with four groups of students representing the individual departments and with a combined group concerned specifically with affirmative action. In addition the Committee heard at luncheon on May 28 reports on the Bicentennial Design Heritage Project and on the development needs of the GSD. The Dean read his Report to the Visiting Committee and copies were distributed to those who attended luncheon.

Among the major issues of these sessions were the following:

1. The atmosphere of the School; the theme of boredom.

2. The role of students in decision-making.

3. The quality and direction of individual departmental curricula; the issue of balancing the practical and the theoretical; the degree of emphasis on social aspects of design.

4. The issue of compartmentalization: the degree of inter-disciplinary collaboration between departments; the issue of specialization vs. breadth, e.g. in Urban Design.

5. The proposal of a School-wide placement office; appraisal of the Professional Development Office of the Department of City and Regional Planning.

6. The alleged failure of the School to live up to its affirmative action commitments.

1. Atmosphere.