NEASC Commission Letter

June 6, 2007

Dr. Barry Mills
President
Bowdoin College
5700 College Station
Brunswick, ME 04011-8448

Dear President Mills:

I am pleased to inform you that at its meeting on April 20, 2007, the Commission on Institutions of Higher Education took the following action with respect to Bowdoin College:

that Bowdoin College be continued in accreditation;

that the institution submit a fifth-year interim report for consideration in Fall 2011;

that, in addition to providing the information included in all interim reports, the institution give emphasis to its continued success in:

  1. developing and implementing a comprehensive program to assess student learning;
  2. strengthening the advising program, particularly for first- and second-year students;
  3. clarifying the system of faculty governance;
  4. integrating space planning to the long-range goals of the institution;

that the next comprehensive evaluation be scheduled for Fall 2016.

The Commission gives the following reasons for its action.

Bowdoin College is continued in accreditation because the Commission finds the institution to be substantially in compliance with the Standards for Accreditation. We commend the institution for its clear articulation of mission and excellence of its academic programs. Revisions to the College’s residential life system have helped diversify its student body and greatly strengthened the institution over a wide range of dimensions. Budget priorities have focused on enhancing academic programs and facilities, keeping faculty compensation competitive, and increasing student financial aid. Robust fundraising has contributed to impressive growth in the endowment, which stands today at over $700 million. Dedicated and highly qualified faculty exemplify the institution’s commitment to being a leader among liberal arts institutions. Bowdoin’s fiscal and academic strength position it very well for the future.

Commission policy requires a fifth-year interim report of all institutions on a decennial evaluation cycle. Its purpose is to provide the Commission an opportunity to appraise the institution’s current status in keeping with the policy on Periodic Review. In addition to the information provided in all interim reports, the College is asked to report in Fall 2011 on matters related to our standards on The Academic Program, Faculty, Students, Organization and Governance, Planning and Evaluation, and Physical and Technological Resources.

Although Bowdoin has taken some steps toward assessment of student learning, more integrated efforts are needed for the institution to develop a comprehensive understanding of what and how students learn, and thereby to make effective improvements to the academic program. The Commission takes favorable note of the faculty’s recent review of the curriculum, articulation of goals for a liberal education, and redesign of general education. The creation of a new position, Dean for Academic Achievement, and assessment grants from the Teagle and Spencer foundations, speak to the College’s desire to gather more qualitative and quantitative evidence of student learning in and out of the classroom, and to use the results of that data-gathering for improvement. We expect that these efforts will bear fruit by 2011 and enable the College to enhance its academic strength by implementing a comprehensive assessment program, in accordance with our standard on The Academic Program:

The institution implements and supports a systematic and broad-based approach to the assessment of student learning focused on educational improvement through understanding what and how students are learning through their academic program and, as appropriate, through outside experiences outside the classroom. This approach is based on a clear statement or statements of what students are expected to gain, achieve, demonstrate, or know by the time they complete their academic program.  The approach provides useful information to help the institution understand what and how students are learning, improve the experiences provided for students, and assure that the level of student achievement is appropriate for the degree awarded. Institutional support is provided for these activities (4.44).

The institution’s approach to understanding student learning focuses on the course, program, and institutional level. Data and other evidence generated through this approach are considered at the appropriate level of focus, with the results being a demonstrable factor in improving the learning opportunities results for students. (4.45).

The institution’s approach to understanding what and how students are learning and using the results for improvement has the support of the institution’s academic and institutional leadership and the systematic involvement of faculty (4.47).

The institution’s system of periodic review of academic programs includes a focus on understanding what and how students learn as a result of the program (4.48).

The institution uses a variety of quantitative and qualitative methods to understand the experiences and learning outcomes of its students. Inquiry may focus on a variety of perspectives, including understanding the process of learning, being able to describe student experiences and learning outcomes in normative terms, and gaining feedback from alumni, employers, and other situated to help in the description and assessment of student learning. The institution devotes appropriate attention to ensuring that its methods of understanding student learning are trustworthy and provide information useful in the continuing improvement of programs and services for students (4.50).

The institution devotes appropriate attention to ensuring that its methods of understanding student learning are trustworthy and provide information useful in the continuing improvement of programs and services for students (4.50).


The introduction of the new curriculum, with a review set for 2010-2011, has highlighted the need for effective advising to support quality classroom instruction. Particularly in view of changes in the curriculum and faculty turnover, we concur with the visiting team that the quality and consistency of advising, particularly for first- and second-year students, is of vital importance. The 2011 report will offer the opportunity to document the effectiveness of the advising system and its role in Bowdoin’s overall goals for teaching and learning, as explicated in our standards on The Academic Program, Faculty, and Students:

The institution ensures that students have systematic, substantial, and sequential opportunities to learn important skill and understandings and actively engage in important problems of their discipline or profession and that they are provided with regular and constructive feedback designed to help them improve their achievement (4.49).

The institution has in place an effective system of academic advising that meets student needs for information and advice and is compatible with its educational objectives. Faculty and other personnel responsible for academic advising are adequately informed and prepared to discharge their advising functions. Resources are adequate to ensure the quality of advising for students regardless of the location of instruction or the mode of delivery (5.17).

The institution offers an array of student services appropriate to its mission and the needs and goals of its students. … In all cases, the institution provides academic support services appropriate to the student body … and provides available and responsive information resources and services, information technology, academic advising and career services and complaint and appeal mechanisms (6.8).


As the self-study points out, faculty governance at Bowdoin has been an issue since the time of the last comprehensive evaluation, and the institution continues to seek an appropriate balance of engagement in decision-making and reasonable levels of service work on committees. There seems to be some perception on campus that the existence of so many faculty committees contributes to confusion about the role of the faculty in the institutional decision-making process. We encourage the institution to consider ways of clarifying and enhancing the effectiveness of its internal governance structures. We look forward to learning in the 2011 report of the ongoing work of the faculty Committee on Governance and campus-wide efforts to illuminate the connection between the work of committees and institutional decisions. Our standard on Organization and Governance offers guidance here:

…The institution’s organizational structure, decision-making process, and policies are clear and consistent with its mission and support institutional effectiveness. The institutions system of governance involves participation of all appropriate constituencies and includes regular communication among them (3.1).

…In accordance with established institutional mechanisms, and procedures, the chief executive officer and the administration consult with faculty, students, other administrators and staff, and are appropriately responsive to their concerns, needs, and initiatives (3.7).

Faculty exercise an important role in assuring the academic integrity of the institution’s educational programs. Faculty have a substantive voice in matters of educational programs, faculty personnel, and other aspects of institutional policy that relate to their areas of responsibility and expertise (3.10).


We note with favor that Bowdoin has engaged thoughtfully in long-range strategic planning, with the College’s mission always as its primary reference point. Efforts in the areas of residential life, admissions, developing a campus master plan, and launching a capital campaign have all been visionary, creative, and broadly inclusive. The next step is for the institution to integrate more intermediate and operational planning with the institution’s long-range goals. Space planning needs to be carefully thought through and explicitly communicated, to ensure that “institutional decision-making, particularly the allocation of resources, is consistent with planning priorities” (2.2). Further guidance is provided in our standard on Physical and Technological Resources:

The institution undertakes physical resource planning linked to academic and student services, support functions, and financial planning. It determines the adequacy of existing physical and technological resources and identifies and plans the specified resolution of deferred maintenance needs. Space planning occurs on a regular basis as part of physical resource evaluation and planning, and is consistent with the mission and purposes of the institutions (8.4).


The scheduling of a comprehensive evaluation in Fall 2016 is consistent with Commission policy requiring each accredited institution to undergo a comprehensive visit at least once every ten years.

You will note that the Commission has specified no length or term of accreditation. Accreditation is a continuing relationship that is reconsidered when necessary. Thus, while the Commission has indicated the timing of the next comprehensive evaluation, the schedule should not be unduly emphasized because it is subject to change.

The Commission expressed appreciation for the self-study prepared by Bowdoin College and for the report submitted by the visiting team. The Commission also welcomed the opportunity to meet with you and team chair Dr. David Oxtoby during its deliberations.

You are encouraged to share this letter with all of the institution’s constituencies. It is Commission policy to inform the chairperson of the institution’s governing board of action on its accreditation status. In a few days we will be sending a copy of this letter to Mr. Peter Small. The institution is free to release information about the evaluation and the Commission’s action to others, in accordance with Commission policy.

The Commission hopes that the evaluation process has contributed to institutional improvement. It appreciates your cooperation with the effort to provide public assurance of the quality of higher education in New England.

If you have questions about the Commission’s action, please contact Barbara Brittingham, Director of the Commission.

Sincerely,

Judith R. Gordon

JRG/jm