the national honors - tennessee tech -:|:- … national honors report issn 1953-3621 '2002...

T H E N A T I O N A L

HO N O R SR E P O R TA PUBLICATION OF THE NATIONAL COLLEGIATE HONORS COUNCIL VOL. XXIII, NO. 2 � SUMMER 2002

THE NATIONAL HONORS REPORTISSN 1953-3621©2002 NCHC, Inc.

The NCHC grants permission to members of the NCHC to reproduce material in this issue for educationaluse on their own campuses or NCHC functions with appropriate attribution to authors and the NCHC. No otherpermissions are granted or implied.

The National Collegiate Council (NCHC) is a professional organization composed of administrators,faculty, and students dedicated to undergraduate honors learning. The nation-wide institutional membership in theNCHC includes both public and private, large and small, two-year and four-year colleges and universities.

The NCHC provides professional and institutional members with information about the latest develop-ments in honors education, encourages the institutional use of learning resources, fosters curricular experimenta-tion, and supplies expertise and support for institutions establishing or seeking to maintain, rework, or evaluatehonors programs. It also institutes educational programs of its own.

Radford University serves as headquarters for the NCHC office of Executive Secretary/Treasurer Earl B.Brown, Jr. All communications regarding subscription, membership, address changes, and other matters of businessshould be sent to him at the NCHC office, Radford University, P.O. Box 7017, Radford, VA 24142; phone (540)831-6100; email <[email protected]>; fax 540-831-5004. To learn more about the NCHC, visit the home page at<http://www.radford.edu/~NCHC>.

The National Honors Report seeks material concerning any aspect of honors development, assessment,curriculum, teaching, or learning. Send electronic submissions via email or disk (IBM compatible). No faxes.Deadlines are Feb. 10, May 10, July 10, and Nov. 10. Material can be sent to Margaret Brown; email<[email protected]>; or 606 Third Avenue, Radford, VA 24141; or phone (540) 639-3414.

Editor: Margaret BrownStaff: Liz Cassell, Business Manager Gayle Barksdale, Layout

The NHR is printed by Walters Printing, Roanoke, VA

NUMBERS@NCHCNUMBERS@NCHCNUMBERS@NCHCNUMBERS@NCHCNUMBERS@NCHCWHAT DO THEY MEAN?WHAT DO THEY MEAN?WHAT DO THEY MEAN?WHAT DO THEY MEAN?WHAT DO THEY MEAN?

1. �Numbers, Mountains, and the Supersonic Fly� by Len Zane............................................1Zane in his Presidential Address (San Francisco, 1996) told us about Mount Whitney, height

14496.811 feet�as Zane says, that�s 14496 and 811 thousands of a foot. How do they know, he asks.How? He reminds us to be skeptical of the beguiling effect of numbers. Originally appeared in Winter1997 issue.

2. �Number Theory� by Margaret Brown..................................................................................6What can we do with all the reports from NCHC committees, with all of the reports from the

NCHC office?

WHAT KIND OF NUMBERSWHAT KIND OF NUMBERSWHAT KIND OF NUMBERSWHAT KIND OF NUMBERSWHAT KIND OF NUMBERSARE WE TALKING ABOUT?ARE WE TALKING ABOUT?ARE WE TALKING ABOUT?ARE WE TALKING ABOUT?ARE WE TALKING ABOUT?

SURVEY RESULTSSURVEY RESULTSSURVEY RESULTSSURVEY RESULTSSURVEY RESULTS FROM THE RESEARCH COMMITTEE FROM THE RESEARCH COMMITTEE FROM THE RESEARCH COMMITTEE FROM THE RESEARCH COMMITTEE FROM THE RESEARCH COMMITTEE

3. �The Honors Director Survey: Nature of the Sample and the Honors Director�s Role�(Part 1) by R. Guy Sedlack.............................................................................................7

Sedlack, the former chair of the NCHC�s Research Committee, presents Part I of a survey sent todirectors of all NCHC-member institutions. Part I discusses the role of honors directors, the circumstancesunder which they conduct their work, and their career advancement. Based on responses from 160 personsto a 290-question measuring instrument. An important addition to the growing body of research into thehonors community. Sedlack�s work shows the incredible variety of NCHC-member institutions and theirdivergent needs and concerns.

SURVEY RESULTSSURVEY RESULTSSURVEY RESULTSSURVEY RESULTSSURVEY RESULTSFROM THE SMALL COLLEGE COMMITTEEFROM THE SMALL COLLEGE COMMITTEEFROM THE SMALL COLLEGE COMMITTEEFROM THE SMALL COLLEGE COMMITTEEFROM THE SMALL COLLEGE COMMITTEE

4. �Results from the SMACOHOP Survey of Small College Honors Programs: Part 4�by Larry Steinhauer.......................................................................................................13

The fourth in a series of five reports from a survey conducted by the Small College Honors Pro-grams (SMACOHOP) section of NCHC in the fall of 1999. Part 4 deals with the nature of Honorsgraduation requirements and about the financial resources available. Parts 1 & 2 can be found in Fall �01and Winter �02 issues. Part 3 can found in the Spring �02 issue. Other constituencies (Large University,Two-Year College) interested in parallel studies could conduct their own surveys during the up-comingannual conference in Salt Lake City. Read this article, even if you think it�s not for you.

5. �Results from the SMACOHOP Survey of Small College Honors Programs: Part 5�by Larry Steinhauer.......................................................................................................17

The final report. Part 5 shares information about physical facilities provided for honors programs,the nature of honors courses, and honors contracts. Many thanks to Larry Steinhauer, honors director atAlbion College MI, for his analyses. His reports can be found in Fall �01, Winter �02, and Spring �02issues of the NHR. We are grateful for his commitment to honors at small colleges.

VOL. XXIII, NO. 2 � SUMMER 2002THE NATIONAL HONORS REPORT

SETTING UP DATA BASESSETTING UP DATA BASESSETTING UP DATA BASESSETTING UP DATA BASESSETTING UP DATA BASES TO KEEP TRACK TO KEEP TRACK TO KEEP TRACK TO KEEP TRACK TO KEEP TRACK

OF HONORS STUDENTS OF HONORS STUDENTS OF HONORS STUDENTS OF HONORS STUDENTS OF HONORS STUDENTS

6. �Tracking Honors Program Data� by Michelle R. Smith...................................................21The director of honors at Midwestern State University shares her lists to track honors data and

generate honors statistics. Three categories: informational lists; numbers and percentages; correlations.An exhaustive list compiled with help from the honors listserv and her own honors council. Very useful fornewcomers to databases who can adapt Smith�s list to fit their program�s needs. Very useful for old timersto re-think their collection of database information.

TRACKING NCHC BUSINESSTRACKING NCHC BUSINESSTRACKING NCHC BUSINESSTRACKING NCHC BUSINESSTRACKING NCHC BUSINESS

7. �Executive Secretary/Treasurer�s Report� by Earl B. Brown, Jr......................................32The Executive Secretary-Treasurer Report prepared for the June Executive Committee meeting.

Contains a financial report, a report on the 2001 Conference, Financial Concerns, Membership Report�to go along with the worksheets listed below. It�s your organization. Evaluate its financial health foryourself.

8. �Show Me The Money: Worksheets from the Executive Secretary/Treasurer�sOffice�.............................................................................................................................37

Funding NCHC Public Relations.Funding Special Projects.Per-Person Costs of 2000-2002 Conferences.Conference Contributors.Conference Projection Worksheet with actual conference costs 1996-2001 (a working document,

for Conference Planning Committee).Conference Financial History from 1989-2001.Membership Dues from 1980-2002.Conference Attendees from 1996-2001 (a working document for Conference Planning Committee).Regional Memberships.

9. Minutes, Finance Committee (draft) submitted by Jacci Rodgers....................................45Includes a list of recommendations to be discussed at the Executive Committee. Also a report on

dues increase necessary to support a paid Executive Director. From Co-Chair of the Finance Committee.

�AND FOR A CHANGE�AND FOR A CHANGE�AND FOR A CHANGE�AND FOR A CHANGE�AND FOR A CHANGE

10. �These Are The Times� by John M. Palms........................................................................47Palms, the NCHC�s first recipient of its Presidential Leadership Award, shares his keynote address

at the recent Southern Regional Honors Council. A thought-provoking look at the personal level of supportavailable in an honors community. Character, relationships, and community challenged by a tragicaccident. Honors beyond its obvious intellectual appeal.

11. �Honors Professor as Honors Student� by Norma Stratemeier.......................................50A fresh slant on honors contracts by Stratemeier, a faculty member at Johnson County Community

College, taking Human Anatomy, an honors course not her own field of expertise. Introduction by RuthFox, honors coordinator at JCCC.

THE NATIONAL HONORS REPORT VOL. XXIII, NO. 2 � SUMMER 2002

Interested in joining the NCHC? Interested in joining the NCHC? Interested in joining the NCHC? Interested in joining the NCHC? Interested in joining the NCHC?

Please use the application below to apply for membership. Mail your payment with the application to:

Earl B. Brown, Jr., Executive Secretary/TreasurerNational Collegiate Honors Council

Radford UniversityBox 7017

Radford, VA 24142-7017

Questions? Please call us at (540) 831-6100 or fax us at (540) 831-5004.You can also email us at [email protected]

MEMBERSHIP APPLICATION

I wish to apply for the following membership (check one):

____ Student ($35)____ Institutional ($250)____ Faculty from member institution ($50)____ Faculty from non-member institution ($125)____ Affiliate Member ($50)

I enclose $__________________ in payment of a one-year membership.

Name (print or type)______________________________________________

Title__________________________________________________________Institution______________________________________________________Mailing Address_________________________________________________City, State, Zip__________________________________________________

Telephone ________________________ Fax_________________________Email ____________________________

VOL. XXIII, NO. 2 � SUMMER 2002 1

I finally decided to relate two stories that by happen-stance begin on mountains. Mountains are ponderousand weighty, and one can rightfully claim to be explor-ing the edge when viewing the landscape from atop one.The stories were selected to remind us that some of thenumbers commonly used by honors practitioners, SATor ACT scores, grade point averages, and class standing,for example, convey significance at first glance thatdoes not hold up under more careful scrutiny.

Before I get to the stories, a little prologue may helpset the stage. Long before I studied physics in college, Iwas fascinated with numbers and the power of quantifi-cation. At birth, I was probably genetically predisposedto empathize with the famous Victorian physicist LordKelvin, who said, �When you can measure what you arespeaking about, and express it in numbers, you knowsomething about it; but when you cannot measure it,when you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledgeis of a meager and unsatisfactory kind.�

Unfortunately, there are times when numbers arewielded like clubs to intimidate or to create a falsesense of substance. There are good numbers, not sogood numbers, and outrageous numbers. If someone,for example, tells me they have one dollar and eighty-two cents in their pocket, my inclination is to take thatas a good number. Money comes in integer units thatcan be counted accurately. On the other hand, when Iweigh myself after working out and get a number like

159.7 pounds on the digital electronic scale at the gym, Irecognize that as a not so good number�at least not asgood as it appears at face value. First, I have seriousdoubts about the scale�s ability to measure accurately tothe tenth of a pound. But putting that concern aside,thinking about my weight to tenths of a pound is ludi-crous. I weigh myself after working out but before mypost-exercise drink of water. Is it an accident that this isthe time during my visit to the athletic club that gives thesmallest possible weight? After working out, I weighabout two pounds less than before�that is a change of 20tenths of a pound! Since my weight fluctuates about twopounds while at the gym, taking the number on the liquidcrystal readout at face value, that is to tenths of a pound, isfoolish�yet regardless of my understanding of thesilliness of measuring my weight to tenths of a pound, theneat little readout causes me to feel good if it is a fewtenths smaller than yesterday or less good if it is a fewtenths more! This is the perniciousness of numbers.

I have always been enchanted by numbers and theirimpact on people. As a teenager, I discovered that I coulddefend any proposition if I was willing to manufacture astatistic or number that bolstered my argument. AlthoughI stopped fabricating numbers many years ago, let me givean example that fits into an honors context. Imagine beingconfronted by an honors prospect who appears to be alittle tentative about participating. A fictional statisticnonchalantly interjected into the conversation�by the

WHAT DO THEY MEAN?WHAT DO THEY MEAN?WHAT DO THEY MEAN?WHAT DO THEY MEAN?WHAT DO THEY MEAN?

Numbers, Mountains andNumbers, Mountains andNumbers, Mountains andNumbers, Mountains andNumbers, Mountains andthe Supersonic Flythe Supersonic Flythe Supersonic Flythe Supersonic Flythe Supersonic Fly

by Len Zaneby Len Zaneby Len Zaneby Len Zaneby Len Zane<[email protected]><[email protected]><[email protected]><[email protected]><[email protected]>

[Editor�s note: Len was President of the NCHC when he delivered this address at the 1996 conference inSan Francisco.]

It is an intimidating and humbling experience to be standing here speaking to you this afternoon. As the timeapproached to give this speech, people would ask if I was nervous. In response, I paraphrased Woody Allen whenhe was asked if he was afraid of dying��No, but I would rather not be there when it happens.�

Each president, when it is his or her turn to speak at the national conference, brings a unique perspective andstyle to the podium. When I looked inward to find my voice, I became concerned about being too serious on theone hand and too whimsical on the other. After all, this is a serious occasion and the opportunity to pontificate onsome arcane and profound subject does not often present itself. On the other hand, it seems that part of my role inNCHC has been to act as a counterweight to the organization�s natural tendency towards ponderousness. Compli-cating the question of voice was the nagging sense I had that I ought to connect my talk to the conference theme,�Explorations On the Edge.�

THE NATIONAL HONORS REPORT2

way, did you know that students who participate in andcomplete an honors curriculum in college earn 47%more money over a lifetime than students graduatingfrom the same school with comparable grades�couldhelp persuade the prospect to sign on the dotted line.Although I left the manufacturing of numbers businessyears ago, I have never lost my fascination with thespell numbers can cast on people.

The first story is about a not so good number or atleast a number not as good as advertised. The secondstory is a lovely tale of an outrageous number�an oft-quoted number with less substance than the numbers Iused to manufacture in my youth. On to the first story.

In the summer of 1988, I hiked up Mount Whitney,the highest mountain in the contiguous forty-eightstates, for the first time. The view from the top ofWhitney is fabulous. But the thing that made thebiggest impression on me was a National Park Serviceplaque commemorating the completion of the highesttrail in the United States on September 5, 1930. On thisplaque, Mt. Whitney�s height is listed as 14496.811feet�that was 14496 and 811 thousandths of a foot! Atthe time, I was flabbergasted that someone could thinkthey had measured the height of a mountain to thou-sandths of a foot�one thousandth of a foot is about aneightieth of an inch�approximately the thickness oftwo sheets of paper!

I completely forgot about the breathtaking view andtried to picture surveyors trekking approximately 200miles from the Pacific Ocean to the top of Mt. Whitneykeeping track of their altitude to a thousandth of a foot.The more I thought about it, the more unbelievable thenumber became. I have been to the top of Whitneythree more times and always check the marker to makesure I wasn�t hallucinating during that first trip.

This past spring, I asked a geologist friend of mineabout the marker on Whitney. He suggested I contactthe U.S. Geological Survey. So one afternoon, I calledand spoke to someone at USGS who appeared to beknowledgeable about the altitude benchmarks onWhitney. He explained that there are markers aboutevery mile or so on the way to the top of the mountain.He was reasonably confident that good surveyors couldmeasure the �difference� in height from one marker tothe next to thousandths of a foot. Since then, inscanning through books on surveying, I have learnedthat the graduated rods used by surveyors are marked tohundredths of a foot and have a sliding vernier attach-ment that allows thousandths to be read. Consequently itis likely that the instruments used to determine theheight of Mount Whitney had a scale that could be readto thousandths of a foot�of course that does not meanthat the height could be measured to thousandths of afoot!

Let me give you two reasons that reinforced my initialincredulity. It would take at least 200 individual measure-ments, assuming the measurements were a mile apart, togo from the Pacific Ocean to the top of Whitney. Each ofthe individual measurements would have to be accurate toa small fraction of a thousandth of a foot in order for theaccumulated error to be a few thousandths of a foot.Imagine measuring a hundred-foot stretch along a trailusing a six-inch ruler marked in sixty-fourths of an inch.At the end of the measurement, after moving the ruler 200times, you could read an answer to sixty-fourths of aninch. But you would be unlikely to claim that youmeasured the whole length to that accuracy because theaccumulated error in moving the ruler 200 times would bemuch larger than the sixty-fourth of an inch accuracy ofthe ruler. So writing the final result of this experiment as99 feet 11 inches and 41/64 of an inch would be, putting itmildly, misleading.

Even more troubling to me was the starting point fordetermining the height of Whitney�mean sea level.What is mean sea level? I tried to picture someonestanding on a beach in California determining somethingcalled mean sea level to an accuracy of one eightieth of aninch. And then I remembered that mean sea level wasdifferent on the two sides of the Panama Canal. Checkingwith my trusty colleague in geology, I learned that thedifference is about 1/2 meter, with the Atlantic beinghigher. Consequently a mountain in Central Americawould be about 1.5 feet higher if measured above meanPacific sea level than if measured with respect to meanAtlantic sea level. Although either measurement could bemade with an instrument error of one thousandth of a foot,the meaninglessness of such measurements becomesapparent when you picture two bronze benchmarks on topof a mountain in Central America with engraved heightsto one thousandth of a foot but differing from one anotherby one and a half feet!

The point here is obvious. The accuracy of themeasuring instrument is not the same as the accuracy ofthe measurement. Surveyors, good careful surveyors,were making accurate measurements from marker tomarker moving toward the top of Mount Whitney. Asthey progressed up the mountain, they lost sight of the factthat the uncertainty in their reference altitude and theerrors accumulated along the way made the final numbermuch less meaningful than the accuracy implied by thenumber on the commemorative plaque. The surveyorsought to have heeded the words of Ishmael, the narrator ofMoby Dick, when talking about the Sperm Whale skeletonthat he measured: �I did not trouble myself with the oddinches; nor, indeed, should inches at all enter into acongenial measurement of the whale.� The same can besaid for the odd fractions of a foot when measuring theheight of a mountain!


A more startling example of a number whose notori-ety far outstripped its substance has roots going back to1917, when Dr. Charles H. T. Townsend, a well-knownentomologist who studied Cephenemyia, more com-monly known as deer or botflies, wrote the following inan article in the Journal of the New York EntomologicalSociety: �On several occasions I saw what I believed tobe the female flies of this species passing with incred-ible swiftness....�

This is an early sign that Dr. Townsend was capti-vated by the speed of Cephenemyia. Nine years later, inan article in Scientific Monthly, the precursor toScientific American, Dr. Townsend quantified thesubjective phrase, �incredible swiftness,� by writing,

Can the speed attained by Cephenemyia in flight becalculated with any degree of accuracy? The writerhas endeavored to do this, having repeatedlywitnessed what he considers both males and femalesof this genus in full flight. In extended flight theirpassing is of such incredible swiftness that one isutterly unable to initiate any movement whatevertoward capture before they vanished from sight.Form is not sensed by the eye as they pass, butmerely a blur or streak of color and only a fleetingglimpse of that. It may be safely estimated, in theopinion of the writer, who has given much thought tothe subject, that these flies attain a speed of upwardof 400 yards per second.

The following year, 1927, in the Journal of the NewYork Entomological Society, Dr. Townsend wrote,

[T]he gravid females are heavily laden with ova andyoung, which must make them slower than males. At7000-foot levels in the Sierra Madre valleys ofwestern Chihuahua I have seen gravid females passwhile on the search for hosts at a velocity of wellover 300 yards per second�allowing a slightperception of color and form but only a blurredglimpse. On the other hand, on 12,000-foot summitsin New Mexico I have seen pass me at an incrediblevelocity what were quite certainly the males ofCephenemyia. I could barely distinguish thatsomething had passed�only a brownish blur in theair of about the right size for these flies and withoutsense of form. As closely as I can estimate, theirspeed must have approximated 400 yards per second.

It should be noted that four hundred yards per secondis 818 MPH�that�s faster than the speed of sound.Thus began the fable of the supersonic fly! For yearsafterwards, the botfly or deer fly was attributed a speedof between 614 MPH for females (300 yds/sec) and 818MPH for males (400 yds/sec). For example, RoyChapman Andrew, Director of the American Museum ofNatural History, in a 1937 article in Natural Historymagazine compared the speed of various animals. Thearticle began with �Who or what, is the Speed Cham-pion of the world? It is an insect rejoicing in the name

of Cephenemyia. A rate of 400 yards per second or 818miles an hour has been chalked up against him�him,because the female does not fly quite so fast for obviousreasons.�

I looked through the next 12 issues of Natural Historyto see if anyone questioned the contention that this flycould break the sound barrier. One astute reader wrote,�Honestly, I think that the estimate of 400 yards a secondis beyond all reason.� But apparently for the most part,intelligent people took this information at face value eventhough the speed attributed to the fly was faster than aspeeding bullet�400 yards/sec is one third again fasterthan the speed of a 45-caliber bullet leaving a Coltrevolver!

One person who had been perplexed by the reports ofthe supersonic fly was Irving Langmuir, a Nobel prize-winning physicist. In 1938, Dr. Langmuir used hisconsiderable skill and experience to deflate the exagger-ated speed claimed for the fly. In an article in Science, hewrote, �About ten years ago, an editorial in The New YorkTimes, in commenting on a new seaplane speed record ofsomething over 300 miles per hour warned man not to betoo boastful of his accomplishments, since the deer fly hasa speed of 700 miles an hour. This speed, nearly that ofsound, seemed to me so fantastically high that I was led tomake some rough mental calculations ....� Langmuir goeson to say, �I was curious also regarding the source of thedata and the nature of the measurements, for the methodsof measuring the velocities of revolver bullets are noteasily applicable to deer flies.�

Langmuir continues, �About a year ago there was aneditorial in a Schenectady newspaper giving the speed ofthe deerfly as 800 miles per hour. Since then I have metmany people who have seen similar citations in variouspublications....I was therefore interested in a two-pagediagram in the Illustrated London News, January 1, 1938,giving the comparative speeds attained by animals, fish,etc. The female deer fly was credited with 614 miles perhour, while for the male the record was 818 miles perhour.�

The article in the Illustrated London News had thereference that had eluded Dr. Langmuir for ten years�Dr.Townsend�s 1927 article in the Journal of the New YorkEntomological Society. Langmuir presented six indepen-dent arguments demolishing the deer fly�s speed. Al-though all six have merit, I will present only two of thearguments.

Langmuir estimated that the fly would have to eat oneand a half times its body weight every second to createenough power, about 1/2 HP, to sustain a speed of 800MPH. Langmuir would have been more surprised if heknew that these flies do not eat in the adult stage. Theiramazing aeronautical prowess is derived totally fromreserves carried over from the larval stage! As wonderfulas the implication of this result is about the metabolismand the power output of the fly, my favorite argument is


much more elegant and requires no assumptions aboutthe aerodynamics of the fly or its ability to convert foodreserves into mechanical energy. In Langmuir�s ownwords,

It is of interest to determine the speed of an objectthe size of a deer fly which would appear as �a barelydistinguishable blur in the air.� For this purpose Itook a short piece of solder about 1 cm long and 0.5cm diameter and tied it about its middle to one endof a light silk thread, holding the other end in myhand. With lengths of thread of from 1 to 3 feet it iseasily possible to swing the weight in a circle in avertical plane at the rate of 3 to 5 rotations persecond.... In this way speeds from 13 to 64 MPHwere produced.Observations in a room, with a brightly lighted whiteceiling as background, showed that at 13 miles perhour the `fly� was merely a blur�the shape could notbe seen, but it could be recognized as a small objectof about the correct size.At 26 miles/hr the fly was barely visible as a movingobject. At 43 miles/hr it appeared as a faint line andthe direction of rotation could not be recognized. At64 miles/hr the moving object was wholly invisible.

Dr. Langmuir concludes with �[t]he description givenby Dr. Townsend of the appearance of the flies seems tocorrespond best with a speed in the neighborhood of 25miles/hr.�

It turned out that Dr. Langmuir�s estimate for thespeed was a little low because he underestimated thesize of the fly by about 50%�mixing up the punyeastern deerfly with our more robust western relative.

Time magazine, Scientific American, and other highcirculation journals immediately spread the word aboutDr. Langmuir�s debunking the extraordinary speedclaims of the deer fly. In spite of this, references to thedeer fly as being the speed champion of the worldcontinued to pop up at least into the 1960�s. Forexample, the 1959 edition of the EncyclopediaBritannica states under botfly, �Cephenemyia, the deerbots, which attack deer in North America, are reputedlythe speediest of animals: C.H.T. Townsend claimed aspeed of 815 MPH.�

It is the astounding staying power of this completelybogus number that has fascinated me for years. Thisnumber took on a life of its own completely dispropor-tionate to the substance that ought to have been attachedto it. But being an extraordinary example does not makeit alone. In our realm of academia there are manyexamples of numbers that are given weight far beyondthat required by common sense.

The mere act of quantification does not make acomplex issue simple or a multi-variate parameter onedimensional. But the urge to use numerical models torate teaching proficiency, to rank people for merit andequity awards, to order students for admissions andscholarships appears to be overwhelming. Years ago,when I took the SAT examination the scores werereported to the nearest integer, 652 for example. Now thenumbers reported by the SAT are rounded to the nearestten, 650 instead of 652. Furthermore, the �SAT StudentScore Report� explains in detail that the score 650 oughtto be considered as the center of a range that goes from620 to 680. The College Board warns us that a SATscore of 650 needs to be viewed as a number with astandard deviation on the order of 30 points. How manyof us, when making academic decisions, take into accountthis admonition to discount the difference between 620and 650 or 650 and 680 on the SAT exam? And ofcourse, this statistical uncertainty says nothing aboutpossible inherent biases in the SAT examination.

Many of us use SAT or ACT scores, high school gradepoint averages or class standing, and other informationthat can be quantified to make decisions about admis-sions and scholarships. The reason we do this is obvi-ous�we want to be objective and consistent. If Marygets a scholarship and Jimmy does not, it is very comfort-ing to be able to explain to Jimmy�s parents that Jimmyscored lower on some numerical scale than Mary--ipsofacto, Mary got the money and Jimmy did not! Thedifficult thing to keep in mind when using a list orderednumerically in some plausible but arbitrary manner is thatthe ordering implies more knowledge and certainty thanis justified by the input data. On the output side, Mary isranked higher than Jimmy. There is nothing uncertainabout the order. Regardless of how small the numerical

A Retrospective on a New Honors Program

1. What is one measure of progress in your program?2. How well does your current program resemble its original vision of it?3. In three years, will your program look very much the same or different?4. What kind of cooperation by whom has caused your program to evolve?5. How well does your program reflect what is true of your institution at large?

from William L. Knox, Northern Michigan University


difference between two people on the list, the process ofordering will still put one ahead of the other. Theranking masks two incredibly important sources ofuncertainty. First the input numbers are invariablytreated as exact. For example, a 650 on the SAT isabsolutely better than a 640 regardless of the admoni-tion of the College Board people to consider a score asthe center of a large range. Second, small and reason-able modifications of the method used to form the listwould produce an ordering with some juxtapositions�the fewer juxtapositions the better the ordering schemebut changes are inevitable.

As a physicist, I would never advocate a ban onnumbers and quantification or suggest that decisionsought to be made with Ouija boards or by using crystals

hung from a string. Numbers have the power to behelpmates in making important and difficult decisions�but we ought not abdicate our powers of judgement whenpresented with numbers that imply more substance thanwarranted.

I wish I had some magic antidote to undermine thebeguiling effect of numbers, but I don�t. Instead I haveoffered you two anecdotes with the hope that they willencourage you to be more skeptical of numbers and morewilling to defend a generous dose of subjectivity whenappropriate. There is tremendous pressure to surroundcomplicated decision making with a maze of objectiveappearing quantification. Refuse to be intimidated bynumbers�remember the supersonic fly!

Scholarship Award Winner

Congratulations to Michael Andrew Gale, University of Florida, who has been awarded a Truman Scholarshipand a Udall Scholarship. One of the seven finalists for the Florida College Student of the Year, Michael is ajunior in zoology with wildlife ecology and music minors. He is also past president of the HonorsAmbassadors, UFL, as well as a volunteer at the Florida Museum of Natural History. Michael is fromCharleston, West Virginia, and plans to be a director of zoo or wildlife conservation center after graduation.

WEB SITES FOR MAJOR SCHOLARSHIPSBritish Marshall Scholarships

http://www.britishcouncil.org/usa/usabmsChurchill Scholarships

http://members.aol.com/churchillFulbright Scholarships

http://exchanges.state.gov/education/bfsGoldwater Scholarships

http://www.act.org/goldwater/Mellon Fellowships

http://www.woodrow.org/mellon/Mitchell Scholarships

http://www.us-irelandalliance.org/mitchell/Rhodes Scholarships

http://www.rhodesscholar.org/Thurgood Marshall Scholarships

http://www.thurgoodmarshallfund.org/Truman Scholarships

http://www.truman.gov/welcome.Udall Scholarships

http://www.udall.gov/p_scholarship.htm


Number TheoryNumber TheoryNumber TheoryNumber TheoryNumber TheoryBy Margaret BrownBy Margaret BrownBy Margaret BrownBy Margaret BrownBy Margaret [email protected]@[email protected]@[email protected]

When we mean to build,We first survey the plot, then draw the model;

And when we see the figure of the house,Then must we rate the cost�

�Shakespeare

You can�t help but notice that this issue is full ofnumbers: financial reports, the last two reports from asurvey of small colleges, the first part of a survey ofNCHC-member institutions. Numbers with which toground our ideas of our honors organization and NCHChonors programs and colleges.

I think that the numbers, numbers, and numbers�here and in recent issues�are a good sign if we canapply them to our own situation. If, for example, yourhonors program or college is housed at a major researchuniversity such as Virginia Tech or Texas Tech, you stillhave something to learn from Steinhauer�s five-partsurvey for NCHC�s Small College Honors Committee,the last two parts in this issue. Surely you can betterevaluate an application for graduate school from astudent who has actively participated in honors at hersmall college once you get a picture of what honors hasmost likely provided for her intellectual and personalgrowth at a small college.

Steinhauer�s five-parter speaks to honors programs attwo-year schools, too. Knowing what your students canexpect when they transfer to small colleges can guideyou in tailoring your program for them. Their successafter they transfer will be your honors program�ssuccess, too, if you�ve kept track of them. (See MichelleSmith�s article here on �Tracking Honors Students.�)Another benefit? The edge your future transfer studentswill have when they apply for admission. Your school�sreputation precedes them.

Research�right now, mainly collecting numbers�isanother step in drawing models of honors. We have oneexcellent model already: �Basic Characteristics of a

Fully-Developed Honors Program.� And Sedlack�sresearch echoes �Basic Characteristics�: honorsprograms are not one-size-fits-all. But we need moreresearch. We need to define honors past the �I know itwhen I see it� stage. We need to construct a newdiscipline: honors.

Research has never been a high priority for theNCHC. Years ago, Ira Cohen, honors director (retired)at Southern Illinois (�Located in Normal,� he used tosay with a wink) and a mentor to many of us, chal-lenged the NCHC to promote and create research. Inthe Winter 1997 issue of the NHR, Cohen said, �forserious work about honors to count for our colleagueswe must start to produce scholarship about honors.Some of it will be empirical, some not� (20).

Strength, I think, comes from the ground up.Strengthening each program strengthens the honorscommunity. Research can create the benchmarks. It�sthe numbers that create the benchmarks: salaries atschools considered equivalent in terms of size, mission,and depth of programs and degrees; administrativeassistance in programs of similar budgets and sizes; re-assigned time for directors of programs similar inbudget and size. That�s what can help individualprograms.

Apply the numbers. Take �Basic Characteristics� andall the numbers you can pull out of this issue to yourboss. Use the numbers to get you something you didn�thave before: a work study student, additional re-assigned time (don�t say release time), a new computer,ten new computers, ten thousand dollars, ten milliondollars. Who knows?


WHAT KIND OF NUMBERS ARE WEWHAT KIND OF NUMBERS ARE WEWHAT KIND OF NUMBERS ARE WEWHAT KIND OF NUMBERS ARE WEWHAT KIND OF NUMBERS ARE WETALKING ABOUT?TALKING ABOUT?TALKING ABOUT?TALKING ABOUT?TALKING ABOUT?

Part I: �The Honors Director Survey:Part I: �The Honors Director Survey:Part I: �The Honors Director Survey:Part I: �The Honors Director Survey:Part I: �The Honors Director Survey:Nature of the Sample and the HonorsNature of the Sample and the HonorsNature of the Sample and the HonorsNature of the Sample and the HonorsNature of the Sample and the Honors

Director�s Role�Director�s Role�Director�s Role�Director�s Role�Director�s Role�by R. Guy Sedlackby R. Guy Sedlackby R. Guy Sedlackby R. Guy Sedlackby R. Guy Sedlack

Towson University Towson University Towson University Towson University Towson University retiredretiredretiredretiredretired

IntroductionThis paper is the first in a series

of presentations which grew out ofthe Director�s Survey conceivedwith some input from the member-ship concerning questions ofinterest. It contained 290 questionsand generated, to-date, 283variables. [Since there remain afew open-ended written responsesthat have not yet been analyzed,additional information may appearin the future; however, the bulk ofthe survey has been completed,coded, entered, and �data-cleaned.�]

Funded by the NCHC andmailed through the auspices of theExecutive Secretary/Treasurer�soffice, the survey was sent duringthe fall semester of 2000 to all thehonors directors whose institutionswere current members of theNational Collegiate HonorsCouncil. Replies were receivedfrom October 13, 2000 throughJune 30, 2001 from 160 memberinstitutions.

The Research Committee wouldlike to thank all 160 persons whoparticipated in this study and alsothe NCHC National Office withoutwhose help the measuring instru-ment could not have been dupli-cated and mailed.

The raw data were coded andentered into the SPSS Version 11.0statistical program.

Notes: Throughout this paper, Iwill use the terms �honors director�or �director� as a generic referenceto the person who filled out thesurvey or who runs the honorsprogram. In truth, this person mayhave the formal title of �HonorsDirector� or �Honors Coordinator�or �Honors Administrator� or�Dean of Honors� or the like.

I. General characteristics of thedirectors and their programs

Forty-eight (30.0%) of theschools were private and 111(69.4) were public.1 Of the 48private institutions, 20 (43.5%)were �denominational� and 19(41.3%) were �non-denomina-tional.� Five (10.9%) wereidentified as �denominational butnot actively so,� two (4.3%) saidthey were �non-denominational,but Christian,� and two others didnot reply to this item. One wouldexpect that honors programs (andmembership in the NCHC) aremore prevalent in public ratherthan private institutions, and thesedata bear that out. Pleasantly, therewas a sufficient number of privateinstitutions in the sample to justifyanalysis of these institutions.

Twenty-seven (16.9%) institu-tions were two-year schools,while 131 (81.9%) were four-yearschools. Two institutions had botha two-year and a four-yearinstructional program.2 Thisresearcher would have hoped thata larger number of two-yearinstitutions would have partici-pated in the study, but the number

who did is not too small tojeopardize the aggregate statis-tics.

Thirty-five (21.9%) institutionswere classified as �major re-search,� 24 (15.0%) as �universi-ties,� 43 (26.9%) as �comprehen-sive universities,� 29 (18.1%) as�four-year colleges,� and 27(16.9%) as �community col-leges.� One additional institutionclassified itself as �a four-yearregional college� and one as a�specialized college in theSUNY� system. There is a goodrange of types of collegiateinstitutions represented, and it issomewhat surprising to see thatthe term �comprehensive univer-sity� seems to be catching on.

Relative to the institution�slocale, 69 (43.1%) are �urban,�

�To be a viable organization, the NCHC needs to appeal to aquite diverse audience that, often, has quite divergent needs.�


40 (25.0%) are �suburban,� and 33(20.6%) are �rural� with twoinstitutions having multiplecampuses with mixed locales.Sixteen institutions declined toanswer this item.3

Institutional size can be, largely,a matter of perception. These datado not grossly misrepresent thefacts, although one respondent�sclaim that a 900+ undergraduatepopulation was a �medium�institution seemed a bit far-fetched.Thus, 51 (33.3%) said they were�small,� 62 (38.8%) �medium,�and 40 (25.0%) answered �large�with seven respondents failing toanswer.

Relative to the school�s type ofstudent, 30 (18.8%) were residen-tial, 36 (22.5%) were commuter,and 88 (55.0%) had a mixedstudent population of substantialproportions of students both livingon campus and commuting to theinstitution.

When the respondents wereasked to report the number of full-time undergraduates, apparentlysome persons gave a specificnumber while others gave anestimate or a �rounded� number.The following should be inter-preted with this in mind. Of the160 schools participating in thissurvey, 138 reported information.The range was 39,458 from aminimum of 542 students to amaximum of 40,000. The medianwas 5036, while the mean was7919, indicating that the �average�was greatly influenced by a limitednumber of, comparatively, largerschools. Thus, the better figure tomeasure average undergraduatepopulation size was the median, inthis case, 5036.

When queried about the numberof part-time undergraduates, 54(33.8%) reported that they had no

idea or left this item blank. A blankresponse could have been inter-preted as a �missing� datum or a�zero or no� part-time students. Itwas impossible to tell. Add to thisthat another twelve institutionsreported fifty or fewer part-timeundergraduate students, then 41.2%of the sample did not appear to havesignificant numbers of part-timestudents. Thus, of the 106 institu-tions for which there was a substan-tial part-time population, theminimum was zero and the maxi-mum was 20,110 with a median of1000 and a mean of 2576. Again, themedian would be the better measureof central tendency.

Looking at the relationshipbetween the institution�s locationand the number of part-time stu-dents, 47.1% of the urban schoolshad 50 or more part-time students,37.9% of the suburban schools, andonly 14.9% of the rural schools.Thus, of those reporting data, 85.0%of the schools with 50 or more part-time students were located in urbanor suburban locales. This is not at allsurprising, for rather obviousreasons. Further, after creating a newvariable (TOTALSTU) by combin-ing both the number of full-time andpart-time undergraduate students andselecting only those institutions withless than 1000 total undergraduatesstudents, only six small schoolsreported part-timers ranging fromzero to 300 with a median of 43students.

Of 139 cases for which there werevalid data, the percentage ofstudents living on the campus rangedfrom 0.0% (none) to 95.0%. Themedian was 33.0% and the meanwas 34.9%. If one eliminates the 27schools with no students living oncampus, the remaining 112 schoolsranged from a low of two per cent toninety-three per cent with a mean of

43.3% and a median of 41.9%.And, again, ten of these 112schools had residential percentagesless than 10 per cent. Finally, ofthe 27 schools reporting that theyhad no residential students oncampus, five (18.5%) were four-year institutions and 22 (81.5%)were two-year institutions. Thesestatistics indicate that a significantmajority of the sample was�mixed� with substantial numbersof students living on the campus aswell as commuting to the institu-tion.

Switching to the item on one�shonors membership category, all160 respondents were members of

the NCHC: (a) 154 hadinstitutional member-ships; (b) one had aprofessional membershiponly; and (c) fivedeclined to answer.

Twenty-one institutions had bothinstitutional and professionalmemberships, while six schoolshad institutional, professional, andstudent memberships. Thirty-fourschools reported that they were notmembers of an NCHC regionalgroups and one declined to answer,while 126 (78.8%) said they were.The regional breakdown was:(a) Great Plains 18 (11.3%);(b) Southern 35 (21.9%);(c) Mideast 7 (4.4%); (d) UpperMidwest 16 (10.0%); (e) Northeast28 (17.5%); and (f) Western 20(12.5%). One institution was amember of two regional honorsorganizations. If the 34 schoolswho were not currently membersof NCHC regional honors organi-zations were to join one, one(2.9%) said they would join theGreat Plains, five (14.7%) theSouthern, three (8.8%) theMideast, seven (20.6%) the UpperMidwest, 14 (41.2%) the North-east, and one (2.9%) the Westernwith three (8.8%) not responding.

Sixty-seven (41.9%) replied thatthere was a state honors organiza-tion in their state, while 85(53.1%) said that there was not.

�Generally speaking, the honors faculty are teaching at the same levelas the non-honors faculty. This is a relationship to be considered.�


Four respondents (2.5%) did notknow and four left this item blank.Of the sixty-seven who knew oftheir state�s honors organization,fifty-nine (88.1%) were membersof it, while eight (11.9%) were not.Asked if their institution was amember of any other honorsorganization, 139 (88.5%) said�No.� Of the remainder, threementioned the National Associa-tion of African-American HonorsPrograms, and three reported theHonors Transfer Council ofCalifornia. Single institutionsreported a variety of other local orregional honors associations.II. Summary of the general data

The statistics above tell thereader something of the climate inwhich the respondents to thesurvey fall. Most of the honorsprograms are in schools located inurban or suburban areas with alarge majority educating significantproportions of both commuter andresidential students. Most of therespondents represent publiceducation and most have medium-to large-sized student bodies. Overeighty per cent of the respondentswere four-years schools, although27 institutions (16.9%) were two-year institutions. However, therewere enough cases representedfrom rural areas, private colleges,and almost exclusively residentialor commuter institutions to doanalyses with these crucial catego-ries.

One thing should be clear fromthe data above. The NCHCmember institutions are quitediverse on a number of importantdimensions, only some of whichare listed above. To be a viableorganization, the NCHC needs toappeal to a quite diverse audiencethat, often, has quite divergentneeds. For example, while not yetdiscussed, some honors programsfunction with no budget and a verysmall number of students. Othersfunction with budgets that are quitelarge and with an equally largenumber of students. These two

groups have quite different concernsand the NCHC needs to be attune tothe important needs of its quitedifferent constituencies. The NCHChas tried �strands� before at thenational meetings wherein sessionshave been grouped and identified, forexample, as appropriate to largehonors programs or small honorsprograms. Perhaps, we might thinkabout groupings devoted to budgetingor recruiting or the like, as the NCHChas, similarly, carved out time for�Beginning in Honors� and �Develop-ing in Honors,� two programs whichcontinue to be quite popular and veryimportant to the membership.

III. The role of the honors directorIn this section, we look at some of

the roles of the honors director andsome aspects of honors facultymembers and the circumstances underwhich they do their work.

First, the expectations of facultyvary considerably from those institu-tions where teaching is of secondaryimportance to research to those whereteaching is the only task of impor-tance. One question on the surveydealt with the faculty teaching load.All but four institutions replied to thisitem. Twenty-four schools (15.4%)have one to two course teaching loads,38 (24.4%) have three course loads,63 (40.4%) have four course loads,and 25 (16.0%) have five or morecourse loads.4 Five schools hadreduced teaching loads for designatedresearch faculty or designatedresearch departments. When asked ifthe honors faculty had the sameteaching load as the non-honors

faculty, 143 (91.1%) said �Yes,�while 11 (7.0%) said �No.�[Three schools had some honorsfaculty with the same load andsome with different loads.]Generally speaking, the honorsfaculty are teaching at the samelevel as the non-honors faculty.This is a relationship to beconsidered.

In many large institutions, largelecture halls, large studentsections, objective exams, lack ofpapers, lack of student discussion,graduate assistants, and the likeare the norms. Thus, faculty havelittle expenditure of their time onthe teaching portion of theiracademic role. To the contrary,honors faculty, with a smallerclass size, are nonetheless readingstudents papers, developing andmonitoring student discussion,and interacting with someregularity during office hours withhonors student who are oftenworking on individualized classprojects or papers. Therefore, thequestion does arise concerningthe equality of the honors and thenon-honors faculty role. In otherwords, should the honors facultybe entitled to a reduced teachingload as �research faculty� are soentitled in some institutions? Thesurvey data do not admit a clearanswer to this question. Forexample, it may very well be thata smaller and less research-oriented institution may have afour-course teaching load with anaverage of 30 students per course,while the research universityfaculty member may teach onlytwo courses but with 100 studentsin each course. Thus, our hypo-thetical research professor isresponsible for 200 students witha two-course load and the four-course professor is handling 120students. So, some additional dataare needed here, which thissurvey did not think to collect,which focuses on both the numberof students taught and the natureof the teaching obligation �

�Therefore, the question doesarise concerning the equalityof the honors and the non-

honors faculty role. In otherwords, should the honors

faculty be entitled to a reducedteaching load as research

faculty are so entitled in someinstitutions?�


directors (8.0%) had two full-time secretaries, while fivedirectors (4.4%) had threesecretaries. Clearly, mostinstitutions recognize andsupport the director�s need forclerical assistance.

Of the 158 persons answer-ing, 68 directors (43.0%) saidthey had an assistant or assistantor associate director, while 90(57.0%) said they did not. Ofthe 60 persons responding to thequestion of how many assis-tants, 38 directors (55.1%) hadan additional person full-time,and 11 (15.9%) directors hadtwo full-time persons. Note,however, that 88 (55.0%) of thedirectors replied earlier thatthey had no assistant directors.5

Finally, concerning paidstudent help, 98 directors(61.3%) had paid student help,while 62 (38.8%) did not. Whenasked how many students, fivemore directors reported for atotal of 103. Of these 103directors, 33 (32.0%) had onestudent, 26 (25.2%) had twostudents, and 12 had threestudents � all of the above full-time. Add one director with theequivalent of 2.5 students, and72 directors (69.9%) had aminimum of one full-time paidstudent assistant or a maximumof three full-time paid students.

IV. The honors director�scareer advancement

There are some faculty whoidentify very strongly with theirdepartmental affiliation, who,then, see honors (as well asinterdisciplinary studies andsimilar foci) as secondaryconcerns and programs that takeaway faculty and resources fromdepartmental teaching andresearch activities. On the otherhand, there are those facultywho see honors programs ascomplementary programs whichdevelop student skills which aregenerally lacking within a

i.e., lecture and objective examsgraded by others as opposed tolecture/discussion, papers andwritten exams graded by thefaculty member.

We also inquired about thenature of the academic term. A vastmajority (95.0%) of the respon-dents said that they were on asemester schedule, while twoinstitutions were on the trimesterscheme, five were using the quartersystem, and one institution had 101/2 week sessions. Since almost all(152 of the 160) of the schools areon the semester system, theanalysis of the teaching loadreduction question was consider-ably simplified.

Asking about compensationreceived for participating inhonors, 151 persons said they werecompensated, while nine were not.Two of these nine persons wereclearly administrators, while a thirdone might have been; the remain-ing six were �honors directors�and, presumably, not compensatedby salary or by reduced teachingload.

The next question asked if thecompensation involved a salary.Thirty-seven respondents left thisitem blank, while 91 (74.0%) saidthey were and 32 (26.0%) said theywere not. Quite frankly, thisquestion was probably flawed ormisinterpreted. While the previousquestion emphasized that we wereinterested in compensation as�Honors Director or HonorsDean,� this researcher believes thatpart of the sample read this tomean, �Of course, I get a salary�rather than a specific additionalamount for involvement in honors.

The next item focused onreduction of one�s teaching load.Thirty-one persons declined toanswer this question. Of the 129who did, 116 (89.9%) said they didhave some teaching load reductionand 13 (10.1%) said they did notreceive any such reduction. Elevenof these thirteen (91.7%) said theyreceived a salary, while one said

�No� and one declined to answer.Therefore, one might conclude thatthe eleven persons who receive asalary but not a reduced teachingload were administrative ratherthan faculty persons.

Another question asked for thehonors director�s teaching loadreduction in hours. This datumneeded to be recast. For example,if the reply was six hours, then onemight wonder if it was half of atwelve-hour load or forty per centof a fifteen-hour load. Therefore,combining the response to thenumber of hours question with thenature of the academic year, thesedata were transformed into apercentage of the teaching loadreduction. For example, 25 percent means a one course out ofevery four or 67 per cent means atwo-course reduction out of everythree. Hence, of the 108 personswho answered this item, 36directors (33.3%) had a fifty percent teaching reduction forhandling the honors program, and16 (14.8%) had a 25 per centreduction. The mean was 47.5%teaching reduction. Further, sevenpersons had a 67% reduction,seven directors had 75% reduction,and seven had a 100% reduction.Sadly, ten people had but a 20 percent reduction or less. Put anotherway, 63 per cent of those whoreplied had a minimum of one-halfof their teaching load reduced forassuming the directorship ofhonors.

Thirty-four (21.3%) of thedirectors reported that they did nothave any type of clerical help,while 126 (78.8%) said they did.Of these 126, 120 (96.8%) saidthey had a secretary. When askedhow many, 113 persons replied and94 directors (83.2%) had theservices of at least one secretaryhalf-time and some had two full-time secretaries. The modalcategory was one full-time secre-tary which 63 directors (55.8%)had, while 16 directors (14.2%)had one half-time secretary. Nine


departmental focus � e.g.,interdisciplinary thinking. Finally,some faculty see the position of theHonors Director as the firststepping stone from a career inteaching and research as a facultymember to that of a full-timeadministrator. Therefore, in thissection we focus on a number ofsurvey items designed to elicit thehonors directors� feelings andexperiences about their academiccareers and their career advance-ment.

We asked whether the directorwas a full-time faculty member. All160 respondents replied with 137(85.6%) saying they were full-timefaculty and 23 (14.4%) saying theywere not. Of the 23 persons whosaid they were not faculty, clearlyseven of them held administrativepositions, as indicated by asubsequent question. Fourteen ofthe remaining sixteen personsidentified themselves as �HonorsDirectors,� so their placement asfaculty or administration was notpossible.

When asked about their affilia-tion, a great number of departmentswere listed. Since most honorsprograms are so heavily invested ina liberal arts curricula, it was notsurprising to find that 40 persons(29.4%) were faculty in English,13 (9.6%) in history, and sevenpersons (5.1%) in Humanities, andtwo (1.5%) in Literature. Surpris-ingly, the social sciences were wellrepresented in this survey associology (nine persons), psychol-ogy (seven), political science(five), economics (four), andanthropology (two) accounted for atotal of 27 directors (19.8%). Inall, 31 different departmentalaffiliations were reported.6

We asked about the director�scurrent academic rank and thedirector�s rank at the time ofappointment as director of honors.All 160 persons replied to thisitem, with 23 (14.4%) saying thatthis item was irrelevant. Sixty-five(40.6%) were full professors at

both the time of the survey and atthe time of their appointment ashonors director. Thirty-one(19.4%) had been promoted whilehonors director and 34 (21.2%)had not been promoted. Sevenpersons (4.4%) did not provideenough information to determinetheir promotional record whileserving as honors director.

I focused on the 34 persons whowere not promoted during theirtenure as honors director. Of the34, twenty-three persons wereassociate professors when theywere appointed director of honors.Seventeen (73.9%) had been thehonors director for three years orless, while six had been directorsfor a range of four to ten years.Further, these 34 had been at theirpresent institutions for a range offive to thirty-one years with a meanof 13.96 and a median of 13.Finally, 69.6 per cent of theseassociate professors were locatedat major research universities,universities, and comprehensiveuniversities, where, presumably,the pressures to publish and to beinvolved in disciplinary programsare greater.

Attention shifted to those whoare currently assistant professorsand who started their involvementas honors directors at that samerank. There were a total of eightpersons in the survey with six(75%) who were directors for threeyears or less and six (75%) whowere at their schools five years orless. Finally, 37.5% were atuniversities or comprehensiveuniversities. Again, one sees thatsix of these eight were relatively�newcomers� to both their institu-tions and as directors of theirhonors programs, although amajority of them were working at

four-year colleges or two-yearcommunity colleges, where,again, presumably, pressures topublish and disciplinary affairsmay be less restricting.

Finally, there were threepersons who were instructors atthe time of their appointment ashonors director and werecurrently instructors. One was

located at a comprehensiveuniversity, two had beendirector for three years or less,but two had been at theirinstitutions for ten and twenty-eight years, respectively.

In sum, it would appear thatthose faculty who have not beenadvanced in rank are mainlythose who have served at theirinstitutions for a limited numberof years and have been honorsdirectors for four to three yearsat the most. So, the empiricalevidence to this point seems toindicate that being an honorsdirector does not automaticallyhinder one�s chances foracademic advancement.Nonetheless, one should notethat the majority of facultymembers holding honorsdirectorships were full profes-sors at the time of their appoint-ment. There are, however, acouple of additional factors toconsider.

Turning to another item, weasked if the honors director wasseeking tenure. Of the 149responses, only 12 (8.1%) saidthat they were. Of these 149persons, 102 of 124 said thatthey already had tenure whenthey became honor directors.Therefore, of the 137 personswho said that they were notseeking tenure, 102 already hadit. If one plays around with the

�So, the empirical evidence to this point seems to indicatethat being an honors director does not automatically hinder

one�s chances for academic advancement.�


mathematics here, the remainder ofthe sample could very well havebeen honors people working moreas administrators (e.g., deans,associate provosts, and the like).Finally, of the 12 who said theywere seeking tenure, five said theythought being an honors directorwould help them, two thought itwould hurt their chances, four hadno idea, and one declined tospeculate. In sum, there did notappear to be enough cases, norenough information to make areasonable judgment concerningthe relationship between involve-ment as an honors director andease of gaining tenure. Indeed, itseems that the safest course is tohave tenure prior to assuming thedirectorship of honors.

Finally, we looked at thepublication variable. Of the totalsample, 152 replied to this item.The range of publications was fromnone to 148. Two respondentsreported 148 and 147 publications,respectively, while one otherperson listed 100. If we drop thesethree (certainly to be admired andenvied) over-achievers, then therange went from zero to 90 with amean of 15.37 and a median of 9.Twenty persons had zero publica-tions and half of the sample hadnine or fewer publications.Seventy-five per cent of the samplehad twenty-two or fewer publica-tions.

Of the 125 persons who re-sponded to the item asking howmany publications came afterbecoming the honors director, 42directors (33.6%) replied �zero�with 90.4 per cent of the samplehaving ten or fewer publications.The mean was four (largely due toa few individuals who continuedhigh publication rates), and themedian was one. To put it anotherway, 83 (66.4%) had two or fewerpublications since assuming theleadership of their honors pro-grams.

Finally, let�s look at the publica-tion variable in yet another way. If

one eliminates the over-achieversmentioned above and one elimi-nates those respondents whoanswered �no publications� on theassumption that they were notinterested in publication at all, thenwhat remains are those faculty whoare interested in publication andwho have proceeded to do such ata more normal rate. Given theseparameters, 128 persons respondedwith a mean prior to becoming thehonors director of 17.88 and amedian of 12, and a mean afterbecoming honors director of 4.06and a median of 1 (one). Theimplications of the above statisticsmust be softened with the knowl-edge that most directors were fullprofessors at the time of theirappointment as honors directorand, therefore, had not only alreadyamassed the majority of theirpublications but also decided tofocus on honors at that point intheir academic lives. Even takingsuch caveats into account, how-ever, assuming the directorship ofan honors program clearly reducesthe time that directors have toproduce academic publications.

Finally, of interest relative topublications, excepting the twentypersons who have never publishedand the four persons who left thisitem blank, 75.9 per cent of theremaining 108 respondents havenever published anything abouthonors with another 14.8 per centhave published one or two piecesabout honors. Thus, nine out ofevery ten honor directors havepublished very little or nothingabout honors.

Age is always a tricky variable;indeed, one respondent pleasantlycastigated me for asking thequestion. Only four persons,however, declined to answer thisitem. Of those who did, honorsdirectors range in age from 31 to68 with the mean of 51 and themedian of 52. Less than 10 percent of the directors are under fortyyears of age. So, the directors are a�seasoned� lot, generally speaking,

which also helps to explain thehigh proportion of full professorsand the lessening of the publica-tion rate.

Notes1 The given percentages may not

add to 100.0 (a) because of roundingerrors or (2) because some respon-dents failed to answer the item. Forexample, in this case, one directordeclined to identify the institution aseither public or private.

2 One institution was in the processof changing from a two-year institu-tion to a four-year one.

3 There were times when this writerwas tempted to answer missing itemsfor the respondent. However, I didresist this temptation, letting eachrespondent answer as that person bestsaw fit. However, some of thesestatistics may be a bit faulty due tosome degree of respondent bias. Forexample, �major research institution�seems to be a term used somewhat�loosely� in a couple of instances. Iwould argue, however, that suchbiases had minimal effects on thesedata due to the size of the sample.Should this not be the case, then anappropriate footnote will be added.

4 Of these 25 schools, all had a fivecourse load except one with a sevencourse load.

5 For those of you following themathematics carefully, note that someabsolute numbers may not add to 160because of a couple of �missing�responses.

6 What�s in a name? It could beargued that those reporting �Humani-ties� and �Literature� could well beplaced within the more standard�English� heading. But, all in all, awide range of academic departmentswere represented.

[Editor�s note: Guy is currentlyhigh atop Snaggy Mountain inTerra Alta, West Virginia, afterhaving retired from TowsonUniversity. This is the first in aseries of articles to be publishedfrom the Honors Director Surveysponsored by the NCHC andexecuted by the NCHC ResearchCommittee. The NHR appreciateshis commitment to honors evenafter retirement.]

13VOL. XXIII, NO. 2 � SUMMER 2002

Results from the SMACOHOP Survey ofResults from the SMACOHOP Survey ofResults from the SMACOHOP Survey ofResults from the SMACOHOP Survey ofResults from the SMACOHOP Survey ofSmall College Honors Programs: Part 4Small College Honors Programs: Part 4Small College Honors Programs: Part 4Small College Honors Programs: Part 4Small College Honors Programs: Part 4

Larry SteinhauerLarry SteinhauerLarry SteinhauerLarry SteinhauerLarry SteinhauerHonors Director, Albion CollegeHonors Director, Albion CollegeHonors Director, Albion CollegeHonors Director, Albion CollegeHonors Director, Albion College

In this, the fourth article in the series reporting on the results of the survey conducted by the Small College HonorsPrograms (SMACOHOP) section of NCHC in the fall of 1999, I would like to examine what the survey tells usabout the nature of Honors graduation requirements and about the financial resources available to small-collegeHonors programs.

Graduation Requirements Honors programs differ greatly in the graduation requirements that they impose onstudents. In this section we will explore some of these differences. First, as Figure 1 makes clear, there is a wide

range among school in the proportion of required Honorscredits in a participant�s undergraduate work. Specifically,the ratio of required Honors credits to total graduationcredits among schools ranges from a low of 5% to a high of41% with an average of 17%. The most striking thingabout this finding is how few of our programs meet theNCHC�s suggested guidelines for a �well-developed honorsprogram� which state that Honors credits be �a substantialportion of the participants� undergraduate work, usually inthe vicinity of 20% or 25% of their total course work andcertainly no less than 15%.� However, 29% of our pro-grams do not meet this 15% minimum and 73% do not meetthe 20-25% normal expectation. This implies that eitherthere are special factors that are systematically at work at

small colleges that prevent us from offering �fully developed� programs or that the guidelines for full developmentare not realistic and need to be revisited. Certainly, the guidelines do not capture the current practice of most small-college Honors programs.

A second area in which programs differ significantly is inthe minimum grade point average required for graduationwith Honors, as can be seen from Figure 2. The minimumrequired gpa varies from a low of 3.0 to a high of 3.6 withan average of 3.3. Further, the distribution has threedistinct spikes at 3.0, 3.2-3.25, and 3.5. Part of thedifferences among programs may reflect differences inphilosophy about what distinguishes an Honors student,with some stressing high overall academic performanceand others satisfactory performance in Honors courses orin meeting other Honors requirements. Also, thesedifferences may reflect differences in grade point inflation

among colleges. In particular, programs with lower required gpa�s may be located on campuses that have experi-enced lower overall grade point inflation over the years.

Figure 1: Minimum Required Honors Credits as a % of Total

Required Credits

1019

43

19

3 5

0

20

40

60

Nu

mb

er

of

Sch

oo

ls <10%

10% - <15%

15% - < 20%

20% - < 25%

25% - < 30%

30%+

Figure 2: Minimum Required GPA for Honors Graduation

23

0

22

149

33

4

0

10

20

30

40

Nu

mb

er

of

Sch

oo

ls

3.0 - <3.1

3.1 - < 3.2

3.2 - < 3.3

3.3 - < 3.4

3.4 - < 3.5

3.5 - < 3.6

3.6

14 THE NATIONAL HONORS REPORT

In addition to minimumgpa and Honors creditsrequirements, manyHonors programs alsoimpose other graduationrequirements. Table 3 liststhe five most oftenimposed requirements andthe percentage of schoolsthat impose them. The fiveinclude: completing an

Honors thesis or other project, compiling a student portfolio, engaging in community service, participating in anexit interview, or presenting the results of a thesis or other project in a public forum. Of the five, completion of athesis is the most often imposed additional requirement (63%) followed by community service (23%), and an exitinterview (22%).

Financial Resources to Support HonorsActivities The next set of surveyquestions tried to measure the financialresources that small-college Honorsprograms are provided to support Honors-related student activities. Figures 4-13and Table 1 present the results from thissection. For each possible area ofsupport, Directors were asked to indicatewhether they had funds regularly allo-cated in their own or other budgets tosupport this activity. If not, they wereasked whether funds might be available�usually upon request,� �occasionally uponspecial request� or not at all. Finally, if fundswere provided, they were asked to indicate theaverage amount they received over the lastthree years. Although most (96%) directorsprovided information on the areas wherefunding was available, many did not providedata on the dollar amount they received.Therefore, for several possible areas offinancial support, there was not enough data toprovide meaningful dollar amounts.

The Honors activities for which regularfunds are most commonly provided aresocial activities (81%), field trips (63%),student travel (57%) and speakers (54%).These are also the only activities for whichwe have enough data to report budgeteddollar amounts.

Figure 3: Other Honors Graduation Requirements

62.9%

3.4%

23.3% 22.4%4.3%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

HonorsThesis

StudentPortfolio

CommunityService

Exit Interview ResearchPresentation

Figure 4: Funds Available for Social Activities?

87

3 8 2 11

020406080

100

HonorsBudget

OtherBudget

Usually Occa-sionally

NeverNu

mb

er o

f S

cho

ols

Figure 5: $s for Social Activities

76

1314

3 3

0

5

10

15

Nu

mb

er

of

Sch

oo

ls < 250

250 < 500

500 < 1000

1000 < 2500

2500 < 5000

5000 +

Figure 6: Funds Available for Field Trips?

67

311 6

24

0

20

40

60

80

HonorsBudget

OtherBudget


NeverNu

mb

er o

f S

cho

ols


Although more schools have funds for social events than forany other activity, nonetheless 12% receive funds onlyoccasionally or not at all for this purpose, and a majority ofschools that do receive funds more regularly have only amodest budget for these activities. The average amountreceived is about $1,175 and 57% of the reporting schoolsreceive less than $1,000. More information on budgets forsocial activities can be found in Figures 4 and 5 and in Table 1.

Field trips are the next most often fundedHonors activity, but here too the degree ofsupport at most schools is modest. 27% ofschools have no funds or receive onlyoccasional support for this activity, and ofthose who receive more regular support, theaverage amount received is just under$1,000, and no school receives more than$3,000 a year. More information onbudgets for field trips can be found inFigures 6 and 7 and in Table 1.

Although only 57% of reporting small-college Honors programs regularly receivefunds for student travel, those who doreceive such money tend to be moregenerously provided with funds for thispurpose than for any other area examined.For example, the average amount receivedby reporting schools was $2,267 and 53%receive at least $1,000 for this purpose.More information on budgets for studenttravel can be found in Figures 8 and 9 and inTable 1.

The last area for which at least 50% ofHonors programs receive regular funding isfor outside speakers. As in most otherareas speaker budgets tend to be relativelymodest. The average budget was $1,253among reporting schools and 63% receivedless than $1,000 for this purpose. Moreinformation on budgets for outsidespeakers can be found in Figures 10 and 11and in Table 1.

Figure 7: $s for Field Trips

7

45

14

20

0

5

10

15

Nu

mb

er

of

Sch

oo

ls < 250

250 < 500

500 < 1000

1000 < 2500

2500 < 5000

5000 +

Figure 8: Funds Available for Student Travel?

59

4 412

32

0

20

40

60

80

HonorsBudget

OtherBudget


NeverNu

mb

er o

f S

cho

ols

Figure 9: $s for Student Travel

32

1012

7

4

0

5

10

15

Nu

mb

er

of

Sch

oo

ls < 250

250 < 500

500 < 1000

1000 < 2500

2500 < 5000

5000 +

Figure 10: Funds Available for Speakers?

53

7 1016

25

0102030405060

HonorsBudget

OtherBudget


NeverNu

mb

er o

f S

cho

ols


Far fewer schools regularly receive funds for the lasttwo areas surveyed�retreats and service projects�than for the previous four areas discussed. Inparticular, only 25% have a regular line item forretreats and only 22% to support service projects.Interestingly, the 22% of schools that have regularfunds for service projects is about equal to the 23%who require community service of Honors students.If you require community service, there ought to befunds in your budget to support this activity. Figures12 and 13 provide more information about budgets inthese last two areas.

Finally, directors were given theopportunity to list other areas wheresignificant funds are regularlyavailable to support student-relatedactivities. The only area that wasmentioned more than once was forfunds to support cultural activities,which is a line item in at least fourprogram budgets.

The conclusion we can draw fromthese budget numbers is that mostHonors programs have moderatebudgets to support at least somestudent-related activities. However,there are also programs at bothextremes. For example, 14% ofreporting schools receive regularsupport in at most only one of theseareas while 23% have financialsupport in at least five of them.

Figure 11: $s for Speakers

5

3

11

7

2 2

0

2

4

6

8

10

12N

um

be

r o

f S

cho

ols < 250

250 < 500

500 < 1000

1000 < 2500

2500 < 5000

5000 +

Figure 12: Funds Available for Service Projects?

186 6 5

76

0

20

40

60

80

HonorsBudget

OtherBudget


NeverNu

mb

er o

f S

cho

ols

Figure 13: Funds Available for Retreats?

26

2 0 7

76

0

20

40

60

80

HonorsBudget

OtherBudget


NeverNu

mb

er o

f S

cho

ols

Table 1: Dollar Amount of Regularly Budgeted Funds for Honors Activities

Activity # of Schools Average Range Reporting Student Travel 38 $2,267 $100-20,000 Speakers 30 $1,253 $100- 7,500 Field Trips 32 $ 997 $100- 3,000 Social Activities 46 $1,175 $ 75- 6,500


Results from the SMACOHOP Survey ofResults from the SMACOHOP Survey ofResults from the SMACOHOP Survey ofResults from the SMACOHOP Survey ofResults from the SMACOHOP Survey ofSmall College Honors Programs: Part 5Small College Honors Programs: Part 5Small College Honors Programs: Part 5Small College Honors Programs: Part 5Small College Honors Programs: Part 5

Larry SteinhauerLarry SteinhauerLarry SteinhauerLarry SteinhauerLarry SteinhauerHonors Director, Albion CollegeHonors Director, Albion CollegeHonors Director, Albion CollegeHonors Director, Albion CollegeHonors Director, Albion College

In this, the fifth and last article in the series reporting on the results of the survey conducted by the Small CollegeHonors Programs (SMACOHOP) section of NCHC in the fall of 1999, I would like to examine what the surveytells us about the physical facilities provided for Honors programs and the nature of the courses and the capstoneexperiences that they offer to Honors students.

Physical Facilities The survey inquired about two different kinds of physical facilities that Honors programs mayutilize in delivering their program: separate housing for Honors students and separate space for meeting the

academic and social needs of students and for programadministration. With regard to housing, directors wereasked whether separate housing was provided forHonors students and if so, what type. The surveyfound that 32% of public but only 20% of privateinstitutions provided such housing. A summary of thetypes of housing provided is given in Figure 1. Themost popular Honors housing option is an Honorsfloor(s) in a dorm. The other two common ways toprovide Honors housing is through a separate Honorsdorm or Honors house(s). It is obvious that a dormcan provide housing for many more students than ahouse, which raises questions how many Honors

students are accommodated in separate Honors housing and whether these students are primary first-year or upper-class students. Unfortunately, the survey did not investigate this area.

Only 55% of the responding small-college Honors pro-grams have a separate physical space for their programeven though NCHC identifies having such quarters as oneof the characteristics of a �well-developed� program.Figure 2 looks at the types of spaces made available tothese more fortunate programs. The most usual spaceturns out to be an Honors office or suite (71%). Only 22%of programs with a separate space, and only 12% ofprograms overall, have their own house or building.Finally there are a small number of programs that havebeen given other types of space such as a separate Honorsclassroom or an apartment for Honors student use.

In order for an Honors space to be �suitable quarters� for a �well-developed� program, NCHC suggests that it bestudent oriented and contain �an Honors library, lounge, reading rooms, personal computers and other appropriatedécor.� In order to get a better idea of the kinds of facilities that are actually contained in small-college Honorsspaces, directors were asked to check off the ones contained in their own space. A summary of their responses

Figure 1: Types of Honors Housing

6

11

2

7

02468

1012

HonorsDorm

Floor(s) inDorm

Rooms inDorm

Rooms inHrs House

Nu

mb

er

of

Sc

ho

ols

Figure 2: Types of Honors Physical Spaces

45

144

01020304050

Office orSuite

House orBldg

OtherNu

mb

er

of

Sch

oo

ls


appears in Figure 3. From theresponses it is clear that Honorsspaces are indeed more oftenoriented toward meeting studentrather than administrative needs(although many Honors spacesaccommodate both). In particu-lar, the two most often includedfacilities in Honors spaces are forstudent social activities (72%)and student study space (69%)and 59% of Honors spacescontain room for both. Further-more, 41% of Honors quartershave computers for student useand 28% provide for all three ofthese student-related needs.

The third most often provided facilities are for anadministrative office (66%). Also, although only 42%provide space for a secretarial office, the number thatprovide such offices (36) corresponds closely to thenumber of programs that employ at least a part-timesecretary (38). Finally, slightly more than 50% ofHonors spaces contain an Honors classroom(s).

One last detail that emerges from the data involves thenumber of different functions included in a stand-aloneHonors Center compared to those in any other type ofHonors space. Honors Centers are more likely to be

multi-purpose facilities that on average accommodate 5.5 of the 8 functions listed in Figure 3 while other types ofHonors spaces are more likely to be more restricted in their facilities, accommodating on average only 3.3 of thesefunctions. Taking all of these findings together, the conclusion that we can draw is that a majority of small-collegeHonors programs either have no or an inadequate physical space to meet the academic and social needs of theirstudents and/or their administrative needs. This point is also driven home by the information displayed in Figure 4.

Honors Courses Non-Honors courses at reportinginstitutions have on average about 22.4 students perclass. In contrast, Honors courses on average areonly about 70% as large with about 15.8 students perclass. However, schools differ greatly in the relativeclass-size. At one extreme there are schools whereHonors class-size is less than 35% of non-Honorscourses while at others Honors class-size is slightlylarger than non-Honors courses. The distribution ofclass-sizes is displayed in Figure 5.

Figure 3: Facilities Contained in Honors Space

69% 72%

41%

56%42%

66%

23%9%

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%

stu

de

nt

stu

dy

spa

ce

stu

de

nt

soci

al

stu

de

nt

com

pu

ters

cla

ssro

om

secr

eta

ryo

ffic

e

ad

min

istr

ativ

eo

ffic

e

facu

lty o

ffic

es

kitc

he

n

Figure 4: Number of Facilities Included in Honors Space

52

2

1218

12 10 10

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Nu

mb

er

of

Sch

oo

ls

No Space

1 function

2

3

4

5

>5

Figure 5: Honors Class-Size as a Percentage of Non-Honors Class-Size

8

13

23

12 1315

0

5

10

15

20

25

Nu

mb

er

of

Sc

ho

ols <50%

50 - <60%

60 - <70%

70 - <80%

80 - <90%

90%+


Several different types of courses are offered for Honors credit. For example, 91% of the responding Honorsprograms offer students some courses that are specially designed for Honors, 65% offer some Honors sections ofnon-Honors courses, while 48% offer some non-Honors courses in which students can elect an Honors option.Figure 6 looks at the number of schools that offer one or more of these different options. The figure indicates that

33% of reporting schools offer all threetypes of Honors courses to theirstudents, while 27% offer onlyspecially designed Honors courses and24% offer specially designed coursesand Honors sections of non-Honorscourses. These are by far the mostoften used combinations.

In addition to Honors courses, 46% ofthe surveyed programs offer studentsan independent study option forfulfilling at least some of their Honors

Program requirements. When a student takes an Honors independent study or a non-Honors courses with anHonors option, the question arises as to whether an Honors contract is used to set the parameters for what must beaccomplished to receive Honors credit. For courses with an Honors option, 89% of the schools use an Honorscontract while for independent studies, 70% use such contracts. Finally, for programs that only offer speciallydesigned Honors courses and/or Honors sections of non-Honors courses, one final question is whether non-Honorsstudents are allowed to take these courses. For programs that only offer specially designed Honors courses, 23%admit non-Honors students to these courses. On the other hand, for programs that offer Honors sections of non-Honors courses 41% admit non-Honors students.

In more than 90% of programs it is the Honors director who is in charge of recruiting faculty to teach in Honors.The next most used option is to have department chairs recruit Honors faculty. This happens in about 5% of theprograms. Once faculty members are recruited to teach an Honors course, if this course is not an Honors section of

a non-Honors departmentalcourse, the question arises asto whether they are releasedfrom other teaching responsi-bilities or teach Honors as anoverload? Figure 7 indicatesthat 52% of schools reducethe departmental teachingload of Honors teachers,while another 35% use acombination of reduceddepartmental teaching andoverloads to cover theirHonors courses. Only 12%

of schools depend exclusively on overloads to cover Honors courses. Finally, of the schools that used teachingoverloads to cover at least some Honors courses, 82% always offer monetary compensation for this overload. Forthe 17 schools that reported overload compensation figures, the range was from $1,200 to 3,500 and the averagecompensation was $2,177. Finally, when a department loses some departmental teaching time as a result ofHonors, is this department provided with funds for partial or full replacement of the teaching hours lost? In only40% of institutions is such compensation provided and of those that receive compensation about two-thirds onlyreceive enough funds for partial replacement.

Figure 7: How are Faculty Released to Teach Honors?

6 4

43

0

26

2 10

10

20

30

40

50

Pd Over-Load

UnpaidOvrload

< DeptTchng

1+2 1+3 2+3 All 3

Nu

mb

er o

f S

cho

ols

Figure 6: Types of Honors Courses Offered

31

1 2

28

8 8

38

0 10 20 30 40

Special Only

Hnrs Sec Only

Reg w/ Hnrs Opt

1+2 1+3 2+3 All 3

Nu

mb

er

of

Sc

ho

ols


Honors Capstones 78% ofthe surveyed Honorsprograms provide theirstudents with some sort ofcapstone experience to endtheir Honors career. Figure8 looks at the nature of thisexperience(s). The data inthe figure indicate that anHonors thesis is clearly themost popular form ofcapstone. Of those pro-grams with a capstoneexperience, 86% require a

thesis, either alone or in conjunction with another capstone experience. A special senior seminar is the next mostpopular capstone, offered by 34% of these programs.

In the survey, programs that offer for an Honorsthesis as a required or optional experience wereasked to describe the parameters of this experience inmore detail. From their responses the followingprofile emerges. First, it takes students on average1.73 semesters to complete a thesis. The distributionof average completion times is shown in Figure 9.Second, in virtually all programs (98%), a facultymember serves as the student�s thesis advisor. Third,63% of programs require additional faculty thesisreaders. The average number of additional readers is1.84 and the range is from one to three. Fourth, onlyabout 6% of programs make use of a thesis readerfrom outside the school. Finally, it is possible from the survey to estimate if requiring a thesis reduces the overallgraduation rate from Honors programs. The answer turns out to be no. The average estimated graduation rate1 forall schools in the sample is 41.4%, while for those with a thesis requirement it is 41.3%.

1 The graduation rate for Honors programs in existence at least five years was estimated as the ratio of the numberof students who graduated with Honors in 1999 to the size of the entering class in 1999. This measure is probablyan underestimate of the true graduation rate since 41% are expanding their program while only 3% are contractingso that the entering class of 1999 is larger than the entering class of current seniors.

Figure 8: The Nature of Honors Capstones

112

55

0

20

2 10

102030405060

SpecialSeminar

Collo-quium

Thesis 1+2 1+3 2+3 All 3

Nu

mb

er o

f S

cho

ols

Figure 9: Average Number of Semesters to Complete a Thesis

0

1020

3040

50

1 sem 1 1/2 2 >2Nu

mb

er

of

Sch

oo

ls


I had many years of teaching behind me, somebusiness experience, and had once set up a StudyAbroad Office on another campus; however, I had noprior experience in Honors. I therefore had a lot oflearning to do, while everything needed doing. Myinitial task was to research existing Honors Programs onother campuses and select four or five successfulprograms at comparable universities with comparablegoals as our models. An Ad Hoc Honors Committee wasformed and we continued envisioning the new vision,researching models, and reading NCHC publications. Ibegan visiting some other Honors Programs, one ofthem at the University of New Mexico, where I wasdelighted to find out, while meeting with Dr. RosalieOtero, that I was visiting with the then President-Electof NCHC. I knew then and I know now that that onecrucial meeting with Dr. Otero at the beginning of mywork in Honors was what set me on the right path as Ibegan to understand and make my way into this newterrain.

Two aspects of Honors that did not take long to catchup with me were the stacks of paperwork that began topile up and the interconnection of Honors with justabout everything and everyone else on campus. In fact, Isoon realized that everyone and everything and all thepapers were somehow all connected and crying out fororganization. With a half to three-fourths time teachingload to handle along with Honors and just one employeebesides myself, my studentaAssistant, working 20 hoursa week, I had to figure out fast what and who and howwent with whom and what and why. So I resorted to myfavorite modus operandi: LISTS.

The following is a list of what I�ve come up with interms of tracking Honors data and generating Honorsstatistics. It took a little help from my friends on the

NCHC Listserv and my Honors Committee, and a lotof help from my invaluable student assistant, ThomasCase, but just a little time to write it down. At this pointin time I have submitted this list to Innovative Designs,a group of our BCIS Students, who is in charge ofcreating an Access database to collect most of the dataand generate the statistics. So, while it�s a long list,many of the tasks on it will be efficiently accomplishedby our new technologies. As you will see, much of thedata can be kept in certain master �lists� (databases)that will then easily generate specific data, statistics,and graphs.

Another important thing I�ve learned is that everyHonors Program is different. There is no one modelthat fits all. The same goes for my list of course, butmaybe some of it will be useful to you as is, or can betailored to fit your needs, or can prompt an idearelevant to your Program. Like any list, it will no doubtcontinue to be modified, as our Program grows andchanges, and as I continue to learn from my experienceand that of others.

THREE KINDS OF DATA TRACKINGFOR HONORS PROGRAMS

There are three basic kinds of data tracking that anHonors Program should generate:

Informational Lists about the Honors Students:Before-During-After the Program.

Numbers and Percentages about the Students, theProgram at Large, and Comparisons with Universitydata.

SETTING UP DATA BASES TO KEEPSETTING UP DATA BASES TO KEEPSETTING UP DATA BASES TO KEEPSETTING UP DATA BASES TO KEEPSETTING UP DATA BASES TO KEEPTRACK OF HONORS STUDENTSTRACK OF HONORS STUDENTSTRACK OF HONORS STUDENTSTRACK OF HONORS STUDENTSTRACK OF HONORS STUDENTS

�Tracking Honors Program Data��Tracking Honors Program Data��Tracking Honors Program Data��Tracking Honors Program Data��Tracking Honors Program Data�ByByByByBy Michelle R. SmithMichelle R. SmithMichelle R. SmithMichelle R. SmithMichelle R. Smith

Midwestern State UniversityMidwestern State UniversityMidwestern State UniversityMidwestern State UniversityMidwestern State University

IntroductionA year and a half ago, I was given the charge to direct, revise, and restructure our university�s Honors Program. It

had existed on and off, more successfully or less successfully, since 1964 as a core-curriculum based HonorsProgram. My charge was to revise and restructure it into a university-wide Honors Program including: (1) a broadchoice of university-wide courses at every level; (2) a wide range of extra-curricular opportunities and requirements;and (3) Honors housing, culminating in an Honors House offering a total living/learning Honors environment.


Correlations to generate all of kinds of statistics andcharts. Again, you can tailor these suggestions to yourcampus, your Honors Program, and your goals.

I. Informational Lists

A. Student Recruitment:1. Prospective Honors Students List: Name, Address,

Phone Number(s), E-mail Address, Date of Contact,How Contacted (Event, Student Initiated, ParentInitiated, Faculty Initiated, Admissions OfficeInitiated, etc.), SAT/ACT/GPA, Name and Locationof High School or College Attended, Date and Kindof Communication (ongoing update as necessary).Save to generate statistical data.

2. Specific Recruitment Lists: Lists of ProspectiveStudents who attended College Preview Day, SpiritDays, and list of Presidential Scholars.

3. Student Applicant and Acceptance Lists.

B. Incoming Students, Retention, Graduation,Alumni:1. Active Honors Students Contact List: Name, Student

ID Number, Address 1 (local), Address 2 (perma-nent), Phone Number(s), E-mail Address, Date andKind of Communication (ongoing update as neces-sary).

2. Active Honors Students Names: Alphabetical list ofnames only. Updated on an ongoing basis. This list issometimes requested by Faculty and is a quickreference tool in the Honors Office.

3. Active Honors Students Names and ID Numbers:Alphabetical with ID. Updated on an ongoing basis.This is another Honors Office quick reference toolwhen ID numbers are involved.

4. Honors Students by Major List: Name, ID, Major/Undecided. Kept by semester, updated as necessary.Saved at end of semester; useful for statistics, charts.

5. Honors Students by SAT/ACT and Major List: Thisgives Names, ID, SAT, ACT, and Major. A usefuloverview for the Honors Director and for generatingstatistics.

6. Honors Students by College, Department, Major,Classification and Advisor: This list is in order of theColleges comprising the University. Under eachCollege are listed the respective Departments(alphabetically) with the names, classifications, andadvisors of Honors Students in that Department. Forexample:

College of Business Administration Jane Doe Accounting JR Dr. A. Smith

This list is handy for Deans, Chairs, Advisors, and theHonors Office.

7. Honors Students Status List: Name, ID, GPA,Number of Honors Courses taken/contracted. Is theStudent Provisional and Why? Is the Student onProbation and Why: GPA, no Honors Course, Lessthan C in an Honors Course, No Activities? Doesthe Student have a Course Waiver? Did the Studentwithdraw from the Honors Program? From theUniversity? Did we remove the Student from theProgram and Why: Previous Probation plus inad-equate GPA, no course, no activities, less than C inan Honors Course? Date Modified. This list isupdated on an ongoing basis per semester and savedat end of semester. It can generate secondary lists ofProvisional Students, Students on Probation,Students Withdrawn, and Students Removed.Information updated as necessary. List saved forstatistical purposes.

8. Student Honors Activities: Name, ID, Classification,Major, List and Number of University/CommunityActivities: How many Brown Bag Seminarsattended? How many Conferences�Attended?Presented? How many Fieldtrips? How manyCultural Activities? How many Lectures? Howmany Art related events? How many Athleticevents? Has the Student fulfilled the Leadership/Community Service requirement? Has the Studentdone a Senior Research Project, Internship, NCHCSemester, or Study Abroad? Date modified. Keptupdated. Necessary to determine Honors StudentStatus and for statistics.

9. List of Prospective Honors Graduates: Name, ID,Major, Projected Graduation Date.

10. List of Honors Graduates: Name, ID, Major, inDecember (year), May (year), August (year)? SeniorResearch Project Title and Mentor.

**Master Lists of Active/Inactive Honors Students**:Many of the above lists can actually be generatedfrom this Master List. Like all of these lists it can betailored to fit your Program�s needs. It shouldcontain all of the most relevant informationalcategories, such as: Name, ID, Address, Phone, E-mail, SAT/ACT, GPA, Major, Classification, Status(Full, Provisional, Probation, Withdrawn, Re-moved), Number of Honors Courses/Contractstaken, Advisor, Projected Graduation date, lastcontact (item code)/date. Details would be found inthe specific lists.

11. **Database Folder for Each Active/InactiveHonors Student**: Electronic Student Folders canbe generated from all of the above lists.

12. Alumni Tracking List: Who? Graduation Date?Employment? Where? Graduate or ProfessionalSchool? Where? Special Honors, Accomplishments?Contact Information. This list helps cultivate amutually beneficial relationship between theProgram and its Graduates.


C. General Program Information:1. List of Honors Courses: Course Name, Number,

Professor, Description.2. List of Honors Faculty: Names, Courses Taught,

Faculty Information including Publications, Awards,Recognition. Both 1 (above) and 2 by semester andsaved.

3. List of Honors Staff: Names, Positions, Recognition,Awards, Publications, Conferences Attended/Presented at, and if Faculty, then Faculty Informa-tion. By semester and saved.

4. Lists of Conferences: List of Conferences thatHonors Students attended or presented for. Compileand save by semester. You may want to keep asimilar list for Honors Faculty. This tracks accom-plishment and at the same time builds a database ofConferences.

5. List of Fieldtrips: List of Fieldtrips Honors Studentsparticipated in per semester. Beginning HonorsStudents often ask �What fieldtrips?� This providesan instant answer, while tracking Honors Studentactivities.

6. List of Community Service/Leadership: List where/what Honors Students did per semester. This listtracks Honors activities, provides information to newStudents, and helps in promoting the Program to thecommunity.

7. List of Awards, Scholarships, Honors, Publicationsof Honors Students per semester.

8. List of Honors Societies: List of Honors Societies inwhich Honors Students are members. While HonorsSocieties are distinct from the Honors Program,many Honors Students also belong to HonorsSocieties and mutually beneficial collaborative linkscan be established between the Program and someHonors Societies.

9. Evaluations: List of kudos from evaluations or otherdocumented sources relating to any aspect of theHonors Program.

II. Program Numbers and Percentages:For recruitment statistics, you may want to trackmuch of 1-5 (below) for prospective Students,applicants, accepted Students, and actual incomingStudents. You may also want to use some of the datato create a statistical profile of �This Year�s HonorsFreshman.�1. Recruitment Data:a. Attendance List for College Day Preview. How many

came? How many applied? How many entered theProgram and what percentage were they of totalincoming Honors Students?

b. Attendance List for Spirit Days Orientation. Howmany came? How many applied? How many enteredthe Program and what percentage were they of totalincoming Honors Students.

c. List of Presidential Scholars interested in Honors.How many? How many applied? How many enteredthe Program and what percentage were they of totalincoming Honors Students?

d. How many invitation letters sent and how manyapplications received? Percentage of applicationsreceived.

e. Total Number of applicants, number accepted,number who joined the Program. Percent acceptedand percent who joined.

f. Number of NMSF�s. Percentage of total applicants/incoming.

g. Number of Incoming Students on Financial Aid?Percentage.

h. Number of Honors Students who are the first intheir families to attend college.

i. You may want to compare some of these percentageswith those of the University at large.

2. Geographical Data:a. List of Students from local area (define). How

many? Percentage of total. You may want to dodivide this list into local high Schools.

b. List of Students from impact area (define). Howmany? Percentage of total.

c. List of other in-state Students. How many? Percent-age of total.

d. List of International Program Students. How many?Which International Student group or Nationality?Percentages. Percentage of total.

e. Comparison with total University Percentages.3. Gender/Ethnicity/Age Program Data:a. How many male Students in the Program?b. How many female?c. How many Ethnic Minorities?d. How many between 17-21; 22-30; etc.?e. Percentage of total Honors Students for each of the

above categories.f. Comparison with total University Percentages.4. Incoming Freshmen/Transfer/Non-Traditional:a. Number of Incoming Freshmen, percentage of total

new Honors Students per semester, per year.b. Number of Transfer Students accepted per semester/

year, percentage of total.c. Number of Non-Tradition Students accepted per

semester/year, percentage of total.d. Percentage of total MSU Students in all categories.5. Admissions Criteria Data:a. SAT List � Highest, Lowest, Averages of Applicants,

Accepted, and Actual Students.b. ACT List � Highest, Lowest, Average of AAA.c. GPA List � Highest, Lowest, Average of AAA.d. Comparison with University Averages.6. Academic Data:a. How many Honors Students per discipline?b. Percentage of total Honors Students in each

discipline.


c. Classification of Students in each discipline. Percent-ages.

d. You may want to create a chart from a, b, c, above.e. How many Honors Students in each Honors desig-

nated class?f. How many Students doing Honors Contracts?g. Student success in completing Honors Courses and

Contracts.h. If Honors Courses are open to other high-achieving

Students, how many other Students are in them?Percentages.

7. Activities Data:a. Number of Honors Students who did an Internship

per semester/major.b. Number of Honors Students who went on a Study

Abroad Program (Mexico, Spain, France, London,other?) per semester/major.

c. Number of Honors Students who did a SeniorResearch Project per semester/major.

d. Percentages who did Internship, Study Abroad, orSenior Research Project.

e. Number and Percentages within majors.f. Number, Percentages of Honors Students involved in

leadership, community service.g. Number, Percentage of Honors Students who

participated in Fieldtrips, and who attended/pre-sented at Conferences.

h. Number, Percentages of Honors Students in otherHonors Societies.

8. General Honors Statistics:a. Number of Full Honors Students per semester.b. Number of Provisional Honors Students per semes-

ter.c. Number of Honors Students on Probation per

semester.d. Number of Honors Students who withdrew from

Program per semester.e. Number of Honors Students who withdrew from

University per semester.f. Number of Honors Students who received an Honors

Course waiver per semester.g. Number of Honors Students who received other

Scholarships per semester?h. Number of Honors Students who received Awards/

Recognition per semester.i. Number of Honors Graduates per semester.j. Average SAT of incoming Freshmen per semester.

Range.k. Average ACT of incoming Freshmen per semester.

Range.l. Average GPA of Honors Freshman per semester.

Range.m. Average GPA of Honors Sophomores per semester.

Range.

n. Average GPA of Honors Juniors per semester.Range.

o. Average GPA of Honors Seniors per semester.Range.

p. Number of Honors Students on Financial Aid persemester.

9. Retention Data Honors:a. How many Honors Students left the Program per

semester? Percentage of total. Number and percent-age per year.

b. How many left per semester because they withdrewfrom the Program on their own? Percentage of thosewho left. Number and percentage per year.

c. How many left per semester because they wereremoved due to GPA? Percentage of those who left.Number and percentage per year.

d. How many left per semester because they didn�ttake an Honors Course? Percentage of those wholeft. Number and percentage per year.

e. How many left per semester because they failed todo the activities? Percentage of those who left.Number and percentage per year.

f. How many left per semester because they withdrewfrom the University? Percentage of those who left.Number and percentage per year.

g. Number and percentage of Honors Students who leftthe University per year compared to general Studentpopulation.

10. Graduation Data:a. How many Honors Graduates per Graduation?b. How many Honors Graduates joined the Program as

Incoming Freshmen?c. How many Honors Graduates joined the Program as

Transfer Students?d. How many Honors Graduates joined the Program as

Non-Traditional Students?e. How many Honors Graduates were the first in their

family to attend college?f. How many Honors Graduates were local/Dallas/TX,

out-of-state? International?g. How many Honors Graduates were male? Female?h. How many Honors Graduates were Ethnic Minori-

ties?i. Correlation of each category with general MSU

Graduates?j. How many and percentage of Honors Students who

actually complete the Program within 4-5 years?k. How many and percentage of Honors Students who

graduate from MSU in 4-5 years (not necessarilyhaving completed the Honors Program)?

l. Percentage of Honors Students (whether they stay inthe Program or not) who actually graduate fromMSU within 4-5 years, compared to general MSUGraduation rates.


11. Post-Graduation:a. Number and percentage of Honors Students going on

to Graduate or Professional Schools.b. Number and percentage of Honors Students going to

Graduate School at MSU, in TX, out-of-state.c. Number and percentage of Honors Students getting

jobs after Graduation.d. Number and percentage we have no information

about.

III. Correlations: From these numbers and percentagesyou can generate all kinds of statistics and charts.Again, you can tailor these suggestions to your campus,your Honors Program, and your goals.

ConclusionWHO BENEFITS FROM HONORS DATA TRACK-ING?

The Honors Program:1. Honors Program Administration: A clearerunderstanding of the components of the Program leadsto greater accomplishment, accountability, visibility, andsupport and promotes Program quality and growthoverall.2. Honors Students: Participation in a Program clearlydefined, monitored, and strategically planned by thoserunning it increases the benefit of the Program to itsmembers.

The University:1. The Faculty: A better run Program that can docu-ment not only its mission but also its exact compositionand performance semester by semester can attain greaterlevels of interest, participation, and commitment fromthe Faculty.2. The Administration: A well-run Program with aclear sense of mission and the statistical data readilyavailable to back up Program success can attain agreater level of administrative commitment to andsupport of the Honors Program as a Hallmark Programof the University.3. The University at Large: A Hallmark Program,strategically planned, understood in depth, accountablydeveloped, favorably viewed by Students, Faculty,Administration, Evaluators, and the AccreditationBoard, will serve to promote the University, recruitbetter qualified Students, and thereby enhance thequality and prestige of the University at large.

Presidents of NCHC

2002 Rosalie Otero, UNM2001 Hew Joiner, GA Southern2000 Joan Digby, LIU-CW Post1999 Bob Spurrier, Oklahoma St.1998 Herbert Lasky, E. Illinois1997 Susanna Finnell, Texas A & M1996 Len Zane, UNLV1995 Ada Long, UAB1994 Julia Bondanella, Indiana U.1993 Ron Link, Miami-Dade1992 Sam Schuman, UNC-Asheville1991 Ira Cohen, Illinois St.1990 Ted Humphrey, Arizona St.1989 Anne Ponder, Kenyon C.1988 John Howarth, UMD1987 Richard Cummings, U. Utah1986 Jocelyn Jackson, Clark C.1985 Samuel Clark, W. Michigan1984 Wallace Kay, U Southern Miss.1983 William Daniel, Winthrop1982 C. Grey Austin, Ohio St.1981 William Mech, Boise St.1980 C. H. Ruedisili, U. Wisconsin1979 Bernice Braid, LIU1978 Andrew DeRocco, UMD1977 Robert Evans, U. Kentucky1976 Lothar Tresp, U. Georgia1975 Catherine Cater, N. Dakota St.1974 Carlyle Beyer, William & Mary1973 Mark Lunine, Kent St.1972 John Portz, UMD1971 Joseph Cohen, Tulane1970 John Eells, Winthrop1969 Dudley Wynn, UNM1968 V. N. Bhatia, Washington St.1967 James Robertson, U. Michigan


WITH NEW SATELLITE SEMINAR SERIES, �THEDIMENSIONS AND DIRECTIONS OF HEALTH:

CHOICES IN THE MAZE,� NCHC AND PHI THETAKAPPA CONTINUE FRUITFUL PARTNERSHIP

by Billy WilsonPhi Theta Kappa

As NCHC continues to strengthen its relationship withother organizations whose missions are similar to ourown, several joint program initiatives are developing.Few have been more fruitful than NCHC�s partnershipwith Phi Theta Kappa, the international honor societyfor two-year colleges.

The partnership was a natural. Like NCHC, Phi ThetaKappa is passionate about promoting excellence inhonors education, and about finding new ways to enrichhonors programs. Phi Theta Kappa was delighted withNCHC�s emphasis on technology in honors through itssatellite seminar, and NCHC was pleased that for yearsPhi Theta Kappa had been developing an annual multi-disciplinary, issue-oriented Honors Study Topic, whichwas perfect for the satellite series.

So, in 2001, Phi Theta Kappa agreed to co-producethe �NCHC-Phi Theta Kappa Satellite Seminar Series.�Together the two organizations printed and distributedpromotion materials and invited all Phi Theta Kappaand NCHC member colleges to subscribe for the veryreasonable fee of $325 for the entire series.

A lot of people must have been impressed. Thesubscriptions zoomed to more than 200 from a previoushigh of 84 and the praise was generous for both thequality of the speakers and the attention to detail, whichwas evident in the production. Therefore, NCHC andPhi Theta Kappa will continue the things, which thesubscribers found most praiseworthy, including:

1. A highly interactive format. Speakers will continueto pace their lectures so that there are several well-placed A & Asessions with students who call in fromaround the country.

2. A studio audience. The studio audience will againbe made up of university, two-year college and highschool honor students.

3. A skillful moderator. The satellite series will again feature Phi Theta Kappa Executive Director Rod Risley as moderator.

4. The Site Coordinator�s Planning Packet. All subscribers will again receive a complete �how to� planning packet, with all of the information needed to organize a successful downlink program.

5. On Line Promotion Materials. Subscribers will receive all on-line promotional posters and sample press releases to assist them in promoting the satellite seminars and the events, which they organize around this series. Subscribers also receive presentation highlights and reading lists prepared by the speakers.

6. Program Guides. Phi Theta Kappa will publish a 32- page program guide complete with an overview of the topic, study questions, ideas for class or seminar orientation of the topic, and a complete bibliography divided among six important issues of the general topic �The Dimensions and Directions of Health: Choices in the Maze.� Ten copies of these program guides will be sent to the site coordinator of each subscribing institution.

7. Connect with high school honor students. Once again Phi Theta Kappa will work with the National Honor Society to promote the Satellite Series. High school honor students will be encouraged by the Headquarters of the National Honor Society to accept your invitation to come to your campus and participate in this honors activity.


NCHC and Phi Theta Kappa will work hard to continueto provide our membership with the most knowledge-able speakers and most student-friendly format for oursatellite seminar series. By doing so, we hope to againelicit comments like these which we received followingthe 2001 satellite series on the topic, �Customs,Traditions, and Celebrations: The Human Drive forCommunity.�

�Congratulations on a WINNER series. Our studentresponse was very positive�the sound and picturequality were first rate.�

�Ann Raia, Former member of NCHCExecutive Committee, Associate Professorof Classics, College of New Rochelle, NY

�The satellite seminar sponsored by NCHC and PhiTheat Kappa serves many purposes in the classroom atOklahoma State University. It acts as an additional toolfor the instructor to draw from and is used to re-enforcematerial. It stirs thoughts and prompts debate.�

�Alisha Bacon, Business Major, OklahomaState University

�The production was great, the tempo was perfect andthe talent was well orchestrated. The students loved it�you�ve set another high standard.�

�Dr. Virginia Stahl, Dean of Student Services,Scottsdale Community College, AZ

REGIONAL COUNCILS

The six regional councils generally meet twice ayear, once at the NCHC national conference inthe fall, and again at a centrally located sitewithin a region in the spring. Regional meetingsin the spring provide an opportunity for honorsstudents and administrators to learn about andshare mutual concerns. These spring meetingsare held at an accessible location, and areshorter and less expensive than the nationalconference. Any school can join any regionalhonors council and may attend any or allregional meetings.

*NortheastMaine, Vermont, New York, Pennsylvania,Maryland, Delaware, New Jersey, Connecticut,Rhode Island, Massachusetts, New Hampshire,District of Columbia & Puerto Rico

*SouthernVirginia, Southern Kentucky, Tennessee,Mississippi, Louisiana, Alabama, Georgia,Florida, South Carolina, Arkansas & NorthCarolina

*MideastSouthern Michigan, Eastern Illinois, Indiana,Northern Kentucky, West Virginia, WesternPennsylvania & Ohio

*Upper MidwestWestern Illinois, Wisconsin, Iowa, Minnesota,Northern Michigan, North Dakota & SouthDakota

*WesternMontana, Wyoming, Idaho, Washington,Oregon, California, Arizona, New Mexico,Colorado, Utah, Nevada, Alaska & Hawaii

*Great PlainsNebraska, Kansas, Missouri, Oklahoma,Arkansas & Texas

HONORS SEMESTERS

Honors Semesters are offered regularlyto allow honors students from throughout

the U.S. to gather for learning experi-ences away from their own campus. NCHCsemesters offer a full load of transfer-able college credit. They combine field

studies, research, internships, seminars,and a carefully planned living/learning

environment that takes advantage of thelocale. Honors Semesters have been

offered in Washington, D.C., the GrandCanyon, the Texas-Mexico Borderlands,Appalachia, the Maine coast, the Iowaheartland, Puerto Rico, Morocco, theUnited Nations, and Czechoslovakia.


Executive Secretary/Treasurer�s ReportEarl B. Brown, Jr.

June 2002

Financial ReportThe books for the year ended 2001have been closed. The NCHCreceived an unqualified opinion,the highest possible, as a result ofthe financial review. (The FinanceCommittee mandated an auditevery six years or whenever a newExecutive Secretary/Treasurer iselected and a financial review inthe other years; our last auditoccurred for the year ended 1997.)

For the year ended 2001 the NCHCshowed a net deficit (excludingHonors Semesters) of $181,761:

General Fund surplus of $18,195Operating surplus of $40, 677Reserve Fund net investment

losses of $22,482;Endowment Fund deficit of$125,020

Net investment losses of $77,347Public Relations Firm expenses

$40,483 (from Conf 99surplus)

Honors Semesters and PortzFund Support of $5,000(from Conf 2000 surplus)

Presidential Leadership Awardexpenses of $2,190 (fromConf 2000 surplus);

Portz Fund surplus of $441Conference Fund deficit of

$75,377

All outstanding bills have beenpaid and Reserve Fund require-ments have been met�[1/2Conference 2002 Budget($273,000) + 1/2 headquarters2002 Budget ($122,000) =$197,500]. The total in ReserveFund as of 12/31/01 is $262,745;despite the deficit, the NCHC willcontinue to award the annualizedinterest income for Scholarships,Prizes and Grants. (See StandingOrders under Scholarship, Prizesand Grants.) FYI, the total assets ofthe Endowment Fund as of 12/31/01 is $352,046 well below the$500,000 necessary to awardspecial project Grants according tothe Standing Orders.

Let me quickly review the proce-dure for handling excess. Accord-ing to the principles established bythe Investment Committee andapproved by the ExecutiveCommittee, Conference andGeneral Fund surpluses are to beused in the following manner: (1)pay outstanding bills; (2) add fundsto the Reserve Fund, if necessary,so that it is, at least, at the mini-mum mandated level; (3) provideScholarship Funds according to theNCHC Standing Orders; and then(4) any remaining funds areinvested in the Endowment Fund.

In my Spring 2000 report I statedthat then President Joan Digbyproposed a different use for someof the monies earmarked for theEndowment Fund. The ExecutiveCommittee authorized the 1999

Conference surplus be used to hireEdward Howard and Co., a publicrelations firm. In Spring 2001, theExecutive Committee voted toamend the Standing Ordergoverning Conference surplus: anyConference surplus may be usedto fund special projects at thediscretion of the ExecutiveCommittee. (See Conference1999 Surplus and Conference2000 Surplus.)

Report on the 2001 ConferenceThe Conference realized a net lossof $75,377. Attached is Confer-ence 2000-2002 Per-PersonCosts that compares the expensesin 2000 with those in 2001 on anitem-by-item basis, lookingespecially at per-person costs. Thedeficit is not easy to explain.Excluding refunds, the Conferenceexceeded projected revenues of$315,000 by some $83,000. But,many more registrants requestedrefunds. Forty-nine institutionsrequested refunds totaling$28,200. Only five requests(totaling $1,720) were denied. TheNCHC refunded one half of theamount requested to each of thoseinstitutions requesting refundsbecause of terrorism. The totalrefunded in 2001 was $16,238compared to $5,270 in 2000.

The Conference did not have asmany contributions as it had in thepast: contributions were $16,800in 1999, $12,800 in 2000, and$3,500 in 2001. (See ConferenceContributors.) The Palmer House

TRACKING NCHC BUSINESSTRACKING NCHC BUSINESSTRACKING NCHC BUSINESSTRACKING NCHC BUSINESSTRACKING NCHC BUSINESS

[Writer�s note: Although you have read some of this information in the previous issue of The National HonorsReport, I thought that I would give you a copy of the entire report presented to the Executive Committee at theSpring Meeting, instead of excising material you may have already read. There have also been revisions in some ofthe financial information since the �End of the Year Report� was written for the Spring 2002 issue. I thank you foryour forbearance. I have also attached for your information a copy of the agenda for the Spring 2002 ExecutiveCommittee Meeting. ]


Hilton was not as willing tonegotiate, according to CMS,because of their commitment topay half of their surplus to theMinneapolis Hilton so that we didnot have to pay a penalty forterminating our contract withMinneapolis for 2001. As part ofthis agreement with the PalmerHouse Hilton, the NCHC hascontracted to return to that hotelfor its 2003 Conference.

The cost for use of audio-visualequipment continues to rise:$11,634 in 1998, $11, 377 in 1999,$16,780 in 2000, and $29,144 in2001.

During the 2000 ConferencePresidential Reception, there werecomplaints about the lack of food.Not running out of food this yearwas a concern of all the Officers.The cost for the PresidentialReception in 2000 was $5,327; thecost for the Presidential Receptionand a Welcome Reception for newattendees in 2001 was $59,000.

Some suggested remedies:1. A different method to analyzeConference expenses. In additionto the Conference ProjectionWorksheet that projects incomeand expenditures, I have created adocument that looks at per-personcosts in terms of fixed and variablecosts. (See Conference ProjectionWorksheet and Conference 2000-2002 Per-Person Costs.) Thisshould help to more accuratelyproject expenses and allow forbetter planning. The NCHC cannotimprove food quality just becausemore attend since food costs arealways per-person. But if the fixedcosts drop because of increasedattendance, then the NCHC canprovide better food, etc.

2. Stop referring to the Conferenceat Rosalie�s or Donzell�s or Hew�sConference. Instead, it is an NCHCConference for which Rosalie orDonzell or Hew plan the Program.I recommend that the FinanceCommittee oversee the financialaspects of all Conferences. It willrecommend a registration Fee andproject an income for the approvalof the Executive Committee.Within that projected income, theConference Chair and the ProgramPlanning Committee can allocateConference funds.

3. The NCHC or its agent negoti-ate per-person costs for meals andReceptions and inform the Pro-gram Chair far enough in advanceso that the Program PlanningCommittee can stay within theprojected revenue approved by theExecutive Committee. I alsorecommend that the NCHC ask allregistrants to indicate which mealsor events they plan to attend inorder to get a more accurate counton food needs. (The 2002 Confer-ence Registration booklet asksregistrants to indicate theirintentions.)

4. Limit the cost of audio-visualequipment by asking those whowish to use high cost technology topay for some portion of it or becreative and find alternative meansto visualize their presentation. Thecost for using PowerPoint at the2002 Conference in Salt Lake Cityis $795; that figure had beennegotiated down from $1,400. TheNCHC does not want to discouragetechnology but at the same time itdesires to keep ConferenceRegistration Fees as low aspossible.

Quarterly ReportsThe first quarter 2002 financialreport was mailed to Members ofthe Executive Committee onApril 23. Total dues revenueswere 27% of the projected year�stotal and expenses were 23% ofthe budgeted year�s total. Incomparison to first quarter 2001,revenues decreased 1% andexpenses decreased 4%. For thefirst quarter 2001 actual revenueswere 26% and actual expenseswere 28%.

Financial Concerns1. Non-Profits. I would like firstto clear up what may be a misun-derstanding regarding the natureof non-profit corporations, such asthe NCHC. According to theIRS, non-profits are organiza-tions in which no part of theirincome is distributable to itsMembers, Directors, Officers,Stockholders, etc. Non-profitsare not prohibited from makingan excess of profit over revenue,just prohibited from distribut-ing that income to Members,Directors, Officers, Stockhold-ers.

2. Financial Solvency. Over thelast year and a half, the ReserveFund and the Endowment Fundhave realized net losses because ofthe economy. As of 12/31/00 thefair market value of NCHCinvestments was approximately$670,000. As of 12/31/01 the fairmarket value was approximately$560,000. It may be time torethink Standing Order III B 2 thatstates that the Conference is notdesigned to generate a surplus.The Executive Committee mightalso need to consider using thoseConference surpluses to grow theEndowment Fund.


3. Revenues and Expenses andMembership Benefits. Althoughthe number of InstitutionalMemberships continues to grow,that growth potential is quicklyeroding, as Membership becomessaturated. Since 1996 the institu-tions that hold Membership havegrown from 587 to 782. Sincealmost 90% of NCHC revenuescome from Institutional Member-ships, the NCHC must look forother sources of revenue orincrease the cost of InstitutionalMemberships.

The Peterson�s Honors Programsand Colleges, 3rd Edition accountsfor a substantial portion of theincrease in Institutional Member-ships in 2002. In Spring 2002, 53institutions rejoined, 18 institutionsjoined for the first time and fourinstitutions changed their Member-ship from Professional Membersfrom a Non-Member Institution toInstitutional Memberships in orderto be included in the 3rd edition.

But at the Finance CommitteeMeeting in April, the FinanceCommittee had to cut back on allbut essential services in order tohave a balanced budget for 2003.What that meant was that theNCHC could not support HonorsSemesters and the Portz Fund atthe level of funding both Commit-tees have come to expect. TheFinance Committee had to cut thePublications Board OperatingBudget $500 and funding formonographs, limiting the Publica-tions Board to one monograph forthe year 2003 (although it has threein the pipeline). It also cut thePresidential Leadership Award for2003 from $2,500 to $500,requesting that the Committee buya bowl/plaque that the NCHCwould add names to each year andgive to the presidential winner asmall replica of the item.

When institutions ask what benefitsthey receive for their dues, I point toNCHC publications, to Portz FundGrants, to Honors Semesters opportu-nities for students and faculty, and totopical Workshops for faculty. Butwhen budgets for these tangible itemsare cut, it appears that the onlybenefits that Members receive are theintangible benefits of a professionaloffice. Portz Fund has lost the yearlysupport from the Portzes who are nolonger mentally and physically able tocontribute. That means the Portz Fundhas lost 50% of its funding. ThePortzes also provided scholarshipmonies for students participating inHonors Semesters and that, too, hasbeen lost.

So for most of our InstitutionalMembers, Membership is comingmore and more to mean being able tosave $125 per-person to attend theNCHC annual Conference. A surveydone by the Long Range PlanningCommittee in conjunction with theirwork on a proposal for an ExecutiveDirector points out that fact in a ratherglaring way. Our Conference Budgetis more than twice that of the Confer-ences of any other higher educationorganization surveyed; yet ourOperating Budget is considerablylower than most of those organiza-tions.

But we will soon have to limitConference expenses as well as raiseRegistration Fees. The Conference hasbeen living on borrowed time�theper-person cost was an estimated $209for 2000, and $236 for 2001. YetRegistration Fees have been $210since 1999 and will continue at thatrate through 2002. The NCHC istightening its belt for the 2002Conference in order to keep the $210Registration Fee. (See ConferenceFinancial History.)

The rise in Operating expenseswithout a concomitant rise inrevenue means that we need todecide first what are theessential elements and activitiesthat we wish to continue tofund�a task begun by theFinance Committee at its Spring2001 Meeting. We then need todecide how to fund theseactivities within our OperatingBudget. (See Membership Duesfrom 1980-2002.)

4. Other Financial Information.The NCHC Financial Statementsinclude an amount for �in-kindcontributions.� This is the amountthat Officers� institutions contrib-ute to the NCHC. For headquar-ters at Radford University, thisincludes the Executive Secretary/Treasurer�s salary and otherexpenses borne by Radford, suchas the allocation of office space(five offices, access to a Confer-ence room, and significant spacefor storage), computers (RU haspurchased five computers for theNCHC), work study students (RUhas provided two students for ninemonths and one student for thesummer), access to phone lines,e-mail, websites and listservs, faxmachine, and the time and work ofthe Grants and Sponsored Pro-gram office, the Accounting officethat handles payments to NCHCstaff, and the Purchasing depart-ment. For the other Officers, theirindividual institutions provide arelative amount of in-kindcontributions, depending on timethe Officer spends doing businessfor the NCHC.

The headquarters� institution andother Officers� institutions in-kindcontributions exclude the in-kindcontributions made by CommitteeChairs (phone calls, faxes, somemailings, travel) and CommitteeMembers who attend CommitteeMeetings. All of these expensesare borne by the home institution,


sometimes by the Honors Program,and sometimes by individuals whopay for their own travel.

This is just to remind the Member-ship of how dependent the NCHCis on the goodwill of individualsand institutions. The NCHC is, inevery sense of the word, a volun-teer organization. As such, theNCHC does not bear the expensesborne by many Members and theirinstitutions. The recent proposal bythe Long Range Planning Commit-tee on restructuring the organiza-tion has provided some insight intothe expenses that would beincurred if the NCHC goes to apermanent headquarters which isnot located at a home institution.

Membership ReportAs of 12/31/01, the NCHC had1210 Members (782 InstitutionalMembers, 328 ProfessionalMembers, 81 Student Members, 19Complimentary Members). This isan increase of 68 over 12/31/00.More importantly, 30 of these areInstitutional Members. Thisincludes six who joined in order tobe included in the 3rd edition ofPeterson�s.

In 2000 we mailed out 97 starterpacks. Of those, approximately70% now hold Memberships (64institutions and three non-Memberprofessionals), approximately thesame as last year�s percentage. Ofthe 64 institutions that joined, twowere previously ProfessionalMemberships from non-Memberinstitutions; three were lapsedMembers that rejoined; 29 joinedwith an application from theNCHC website; six joined becauseof their interest in appearing inPeterson�s, seven joined because ofthe contact made by EdwardHoward and Co. (our PR firm), twojoined because of information onthe NCHC provided on StamatsQuickTakes (which providesinsights into research, planning,

and integrated marketing forcolleges and universities publishedas an e-mail to subscribers), andthe other 15 joined by filling outthe invoice in their starter pack.

Other Information1. Conference Attendance. Areview of Conference attendancedata revealed that some percent-ages have remained fairly con-stant�the percentage of studentattendees and the percentage ofstudent presenters; whereas, somehave not�the number and percent-age of institutions attending hasincreased while the number of non-Members attending has decreased.(See Conference Attendees 1996-2001.)

Conference Attendees 1996-2001also provides information on thenumber of institutions that return tothe Conference from one year tothe next, the number of presenta-tions during the Conference, andinformation on regional attendanceat NCHC Conferences. For thoseinterested, information is availableon which institutions have attendedin which years.

I don�t want to make more of thesenumbers than the fact that they giveus some idea on how manyinstitutions are returning year afteryear. As to whether we makechanges dependent on that infor-mation is up to future ProgramPlanning Committees. Given thenumber of returning institutions(between 65 and 77% from 1996through 2001), the NCHC must bedoing something right.

2. CMS�s Income and Expenses.The NCHC must keep in mind thatall services performed for theNCHC by CMS that are not part ofthe contract must be negotiatedwith CMS. The NCHC agreed percontract to pay CMS 60% of latefees collected. When, therefore, theInterim Operations Board chooses

to refund late fees, the NCHC isnot just refunding the $40 but istaking $25 out of its own pocket.When we ask CMS to help selectsites for the Retreat/ExecutiveCommittee Meetings, the fee is$500 a day plus expenses. Ourcurrent contract with CMS expiresafter the 2003 Conference inChicago.

3. Conference Sites.Conference 2002, Salt Lake City.Thanks to the efforts of EstherRadinger, we will hold our 2002Conference at the Grand AmericaHotel and Towers in Salt LakeCity, October 30-November 3.

Conference 2003, Chicago. CMSsuccessfully negotiated with theHilton Corporation to change oursite for 2001 because we hadoutgrown the Minneapolis Hilton.The Palmer House hosted us in2001 but had to rebate half of theprofits to Minneapolis (so that wedo not have to pay contractstipulated damages) with thestipulation that we return to thePalmer House in 2003.

Conference 2004, New Orleans.Thanks to the efforts of Jack Whiteand the Site Selection Committeewe will hold our 2004 Conferencein New Orleans at the HyattRegency.

The dates are as follows:2002 - Salt Lake City, Grand

America Hotel & Towers(October 30-November 3)

2003 - Chicago, Palmer HouseHilton (November 5-9)

2004 - New Orleans, HyattRegency (November 10-14)

4. Interim Operations BoardMeeting�The IOB did not meetformally this year. Instead, the IOBhas chosen to conduct businessthrough conference calls approxi-mately every two weeks. I sent allMembers of the IOB year-end


2001 information concerning theConference, the Budget, NCHCfinancial statements and otherfinancial information as well asdraft copies of minutes of theExecutive Committee & BusinessMeetings.

5. Regional Conferences andMemberships-At the fall 1999Conference, then President BobSpurrier and other Officers metwith Officers from the Regions todiscuss NCHC representation atthe Regional Conference. AllRegions were eager to have suchrepresentation. Each of the Officersattended a different RegionalConference with Earl Brownattending two. I know that allOfficers have held sessionsdiscussing the relationship betweenNCHC and the Regions during theRegional Meeting. If we are to reapthe benefits of attending RegionalMeetings, then the ExecutiveCommittee needs to discuss/address the issues raised at theRegional Meetings.

Thanks to the efforts of theRegional Executive Secretary/Treasurer�s, I have been able tocompile some data about RegionalMemberships in the NCHC. Whatthe data reveals is that, in manycases, more institutions holdMemberships in the NCHC than intheir region. For instance, 20institutions hold Memberships inthe MidEast region. These same 20also hold Membership in theNCHC. But an additional 62institutions from the MidEast holdMemberships in the NCHC but notin their region. The Regional EST�sand I have exchanged this informa-tion. It is my hope that we canwork together to promote honorson the State/area, Regional andNational level so that all honorsPrograms can take advantage ofopportunities to meet and discusshonors. (See Regional Member-ships.)

NATIONAL COLLEGIATE HONORS COUNCIL2002 Spring Meeting of the Executive Committee

Santa Fe, Hotel Santa Fe Friday and Saturday, June 21-22, 2002

I. Call to Order, Welcome, and Introductions - OteroII. Approval of Agenda - OteroIII. Approval of Minutes of October 2001 Meeting - BrownIV. President�s Report - OteroV. Executive Secretary-Treasurer�s Report - BrownVI.New Business � Otero

A. Motions concerning the organizational structure of the NCHCB. Motions concerning hiring a conference manager for 2004C. Report of the Finance Committee � RodgersD. Amendments to the Constitution, ByLaws, and Standing Orders - Spurrier

1. Motions from CB&SO (See hand-out.)2. Motions from Finance Committee3. Other Amendments/changes

E. Report of the Nominating Committee - JoinerF. Report of the Conference Program Planning Committees

1. 2001 Chicago Conference (final report) - Otero2. 2002 Salt Lake City Conference - Lee3. 2003 Chicago Conference - Weiner4. Other conference issues �Finance Committee oversee conference revenues/expenses �Conference Registration fee

G. Other Committee Reports Requiring Executive Committee Action or Attention

1. Site Consideration - White2. External Relations Committee�Daniel, Digby �Discussion of the work of Edward Howard (PR firm) �Review work in progress3. Honors Evaluation Committee � Grady/Mech �Discussion of follow-up to ad hoc Honors College Committee �Discussion of yearly workshops for site visitors4. Honors Semesters Committee � Braid �Alumni reunion during the 2002 NCHC Conference5. Long Range Planning Committee - Slavin �Executive Director6. Pre-College Gifted Committee - Berglund �Appointment of liaison to The Associated for the Gifted (TAG). [Committee recommends Kathleen Kardaras, NE Illinois U]7. Publications Board � Portnoy/Savage �Cost for higher quality publications �Advertising on the listserv (photo safari)8. Student Concerns Committee - Goot/Hill �NCHC Student of the Year Award �Posting of links to NCHC Student Website

(www.potsdam.edu/SPHP/NCHC)9. Two Year College Committee- McDonough/Rinne �Discussion of ad hoc Articulation Committee

VII. Old BusinessA. Report on donor letters, process and forms - ShineB. Finance Committee motion to increase dues for Institutional members to $300C. Effect of distance education on honorsD. Change term of EST to four yearsE. Partnerships with Teach for America and other partnerships-Weiner, JoinerF. Class standing prerequisite for students to run for Executive Committee-Spurrier, HillG. Other Old Business

VIII. Adjournment


Payments Balance YearEnd TotalPmtsCONFERENCE SURPLUS $60,000.00

PAYMENTS:Date Ck No. Payee

5/30/2001 1006 Edward Howard & Co.-Inv#104026;Apr'01 work 2,366.25 57,633.756/27/2001 1009 Edward Howard & Co.-Inv#105030;May'01 work 3,095.88 54,537.877/26/2001 1010 Edward Howard & Co.-Inv#106049;Jun'01 work 4,370.52 50,167.358/22/2001 1012 Edward Howard & Co.-Inv#107029;July'01 work 3,782.18 46,385.1710/1/2001 1013 Edward Howard & Co.-Inv#108029;Aug'01 work 7,383.72 39,001.4510/18/2001 1014 Edward Howard & Co.-Inv#109048;Sept'01 work 5,336.43 33,665.0211/27/2001 1015 Edward Howard & Co.-Inv#110113;Oct'01 work 9,121.21 24,543.8112/31/2001 1016 Edward Howard & Co.-Inv#111038;Nov'01 work 5,027.35 19,516.46 2001 40,483.541/18/2002 1017 Edward Howard & Co.-Inv#112029;Dec'01 work 2,873.20 16,643.262/21/2002 1018 Edward Howard & Co.-Inv#201031;Jan'02 work 8,345.84 8,297.423/25/2002 1019 Edward Howard & Co.-Inv#202028;Feb'02 work 871.08 7,426.344/22/2002 1020 Edward Howard & Co.-Inv#203032;Mar'02 work 530.00 6,896.34

TOTAL PAYMENTS $53,103.66 40,483.54

CONFERENCE 1999 SURPLUS FOR FUNDING NCHC PUBLIC RELATIONS (ENDOWMENT FUND-Expense Acct 32)

Payments Balance YearEnd TotalPmtsCONFERENCE SURPLUS $32,000.00

PAYMENTSDate Check No. Payee

11/2/2000 EF - DM Frank Shushok, Jr (Honorarium-TopicalConf''00) $1,500.00 $30,500.0011/28/2000 EF-1001 John S. Grady (Honorarium-TopicalConf'00) $1,000.00 $29,500.0011/28/2000 EF-1002 Bernice Briad (Honorarium-TopicalConf'00) $1,000.00 $28,500.0011/28/2000 EF-1003 Liz Beck (Honorarium-TopicalConf''00) $1,000.00 $27,500.0011/28/2000 EF-1004 Bill Daniel (Honorarium-TopicalConf'00) $1,000.00 $26,500.0011/28/2000 EF-1005 Ada Long (Honorarium-TopicalConf'00) $1,000.00 $25,500.00 2000 $6,500.00

6/27/2001 EF-1007 NCHC Portz (NoPortz'00Cntrbn;this subs for Prtz) $2,500.00 $23,000.006/27/2001 EF-1008 NCHCHonSemCmte (NoPrtz'00Cntrbn;this subs for Prtz) $2,500.00 $20,500.008/20/2001 EF-1011 Tiffany & Co [2001 Presidential Award(Dr. John Palms)] $2,140.00 $18,360.0011/9/2001 EF-Chrg SmithBarneyAnnualFeeForCheckWriting $50.00 $18,310.00 2001 $7,190.00

TOTAL PAYMENTS $13,690.00

APPROVED--NOT PAID: EC Mtg Oct 31-Nov 4, 2001: 1) Portz Fund for calendar year 2002 $2,500 2) Honors Semesters for calendar year 2002 $2,500 3) Presidential Award for calendar year 2002 $2,000 4) Pub Bd-create title index CD & web-no yr stipulated $800

TOTAL $7,800

FOR FUNDING SPECIAL PROJECTS (ENDOWMENT FUND-Expense Acct 123)

$13,690.00

CONFERENCE 2000 SURPLUS


2002

2001

2000

Att

enda

nce

1

,300

est

1,87

31,

949

Fixe

d C

osts

2002

est

2001

2000

audi

o-vi

sual

cos

ts

$12,

225

$29,

144

$16,

780

Hot

el fo

od 2

002

est.

114,

400

Var

iabl

es 2

002

est.

spea

kers

$12,

000

$13,

488

$10,

500

3 co

ntin

enta

l brk

fst

36,4

00$2

8.00

Gal

apr

intin

g $1

3,50

0$1

3,19

6$2

4,88

01

banq

uet

39,0

00$3

0.00

nam

e ba

dge

com

pute

r ren

tal

$2,9

00$2

,900

$2,9

001

rece

ptio

n26

,000

$20.

00cm

s pe

r per

son

fee

($19

.00

phon

es, p

hoto

copy

$5,0

00$4

,148

$6,3

47m

isc

food

13,0

00$1

0.00

late

fees

conf

bur

eau

tem

ps$2

,000

$3,2

43$1

,931

per

pers

on 2

002

$88.

00pe

r pe

rson

200

2ci

ty a

s te

xt$2

,000

$1,9

08$1

,071

sign

age

$2,0

00$1

,623

$1,6

37H

otel

food

200

118

1,66

6V

aria

bles

200

1lo

cal a

dm/tr

ans

$2,0

00$0

$03

cont

brk

fst

52,0

00$2

7.76

gala

ba

nk s

erv

char

ge$0

$0$0

banq

uet

62,7

50$3

3.50

nam

e ba

dge

adve

rtisi

ng$6

,500

$6,4

55$4

,719

2 re

cept

ions

59,0

00$2

9.49

cms

per p

erso

n fe

e ($

19)

pre-

conf

exp

ense

s$1

3,50

0$1

3,63

3$1

7,20

2m

isc

food

7,91

6$0

.27

late

fees

prog

ram

pla

nner

exp

$3,0

00$4

,061

$2,8

26pe

r pe

rson

200

1$9

1.02

per

pers

on 2

001

secu

rity

$500

$750

$774

ada

com

plia

nce

$6,0

00$9

,339

$7,8

81H

otel

food

200

011

4,87

0V

aria

bles

200

0cr

edit

card

fees

$4,0

00$4

,366

$4,1

452

cont

brk

fst

19,4

98$1

0.00

gala

mas

ter c

lass

$1,2

00$0

$0ba

nque

t63

,189

$32.

42na

me

badg

eto

tal f

ixed

cos

ts$8

8,32

5$1

08,2

54$1

03,5

93re

cept

ion

5,32

7$2

.73

cms

per p

erso

n fe

e ($

18)

mis

c fo

od/o

ther

cha

rges

26,8

56$1

3.78

late

fees

per

pers

on fi

xed

$67.

94$5

7.80

$53.

15pe

r pe

rson

200

0$5

8.94

per

pers

on 2

000

per

pers

on h

otel

food

$88.

00$9

1.02

$58.

94pe

r pe

rson

var

iabl

es$5

4.06

$87.

43$9

7.18

tota

l per

per

son

cost

s**

$210

.00

$236

.25

$209

.27

tota

l per

per

son

(exc

ludi

ng c

omps

)$2

54.0

1$2

10.3

5

**Th

e pe

r pe

rson

cos

ts fo

r 20

00 a

nd 2

001

incl

ude

com

p re

gist

ratio

ns (2

000

= 10

com

ps; 2

001

= 45

com

ps--

we

invi

ted

pros

pect

ive

2004

con

vent

ion

man

ager

s).

The

NC

HC

abs

orbs

the

com

p re

gist

ratio

ns fo

r ho

tel f

ood

and

othe

r va

riab

les,

incl

udin

g C

MS

' per

per

son

fees

.

Co

nfe

ren

ce 2

000-

2002

Per

Per

son

Co

sts

TH

IS IS

A W

OR

KIN

G D

OC

UM

EN

T U

SE

D F

OR

CO

NF

ER

EN

CE

PL

AN

NIN

G O

NLY


Co

mp

Co

mp

Co

mp

Co

mp

Co

mp

Co

ntr

ibu

tor

Re

gF

ee

Am

ou

nt

Re

gF

ee

Am

ou

nt

Re

gF

ee

Am

ou

nt

Re

gF

ee

Am

ou

nt

Re

gF

ee

A

AA

me

rica

n A

cad

em

y fo

r L

ibe

ral E

du

catio

n0

No

50

0

Am

eri

can

Stu

die

sN

o1

,00

0

Bri

gh

am

Yo

un

g U

niv

ers

ity1

2,5

00

Cre

igh

ton

Un

iv(S

ch P

ha

r &

Alld

Hlth

Pro

f)0

No

50

0Y

es

50

0

Go

lde

n K

ey

Na

t'l H

on

or

So

cie

tyN

/AN

/A1

B1

,50

0Y

es

1,5

00

Ho

no

rs I

nst

itute

Hill

sbo

rou

gh

Co

mm

Co

llN

o5

00

Ph

i Be

ta K

ap

pa

11

,00

01

1,0

00

Ye

s5

00

Ph

i Ka

pp

a P

hi

11

,00

01

1,0

00

Ye

s5

00

Se

lf F

ello

wsh

ip P

rog

ram

01

7,5

00

Ye

s1

0,0

00

1

Th

e N

ew

Yo

rk T

ime

s0

11

,00

0Y

es

1,0

00

Un

ive

rsity

of

Uta

h-H

on

ors

Pro

gra

m0

No

30

0N

o3

00

Wa

shin

gto

n C

en

ter

No

1,0

00

No

1,0

00

No

1,0

00

Drs

. Ir

ma

& L

ou

is W

eis

sY

es

50

0

B(1

,50

0)

TO

TA

L2

,50

03

,50

01

2,8

00

16

,80

01

A -

Co

mp

lime

nta

ry r

eg

istr

atio

n f

ee

no

t a

dd

ress

ed

th

is y

ea

r.B

- $

1,5

00

Co

ntr

ibu

tion

re

fun

de

d t

o G

old

en

Ke

y, c

he

ck n

o.

61

57

, 1

1/1

6/0

0 d

ue

to

ina

pp

rop

ria

te b

eh

avi

or

by

Go

lde

n K

ey

at

Co

nfe

ren

ce.

19

98

20

01

20

00

19

99

20

02C

ON

FE

RE

NC

E C

ON

TR

IBU

TO

RS


DE

SC

RIP

TIO

NF

,VA

cc

tA

CT

UA

LE

ST

IMA

TE

AC

TU

AL

ES

TIM

AT

EA

CT

UA

LE

ST

IMA

TE

AC

TU

AL

AC

TU

AL

INC

OM

E:

Sa

lt L

ak

e C

ity

Ch

ica

go

13

00

@2

10

18

73

att

en

de

d1

50

0@

21

01

94

9 a

tte

nd

ed

14

00

@2

10

15

22

att

en

de

d1

62

1 a

tte

nd

ed

Re

gis

tra

tio

n I

nc

om

e5

92

73

,00

03

98

,50

53

15

,00

04

28

,77

02

94

,00

03

31

,43

32

99

,28

5

Mis

c I

nc

om

e

6

0B

5,3

84

14

,53

01

8,0

80

14

,45

0

Re

fun

d E

xp

en

se

96

(16

,23

8)

(5,2

70

)(4

,82

5)

(6,0

35

)

Inte

res

t In

co

me

61

1,3

19

2,2

03

1,7

96

3,3

67

TO

TA

L I

NC

OM

E0

27

3,0

00

38

8,9

71

31

5,0

00

44

0,2

33

29

4,0

00

34

6,4

84

31

1,0

67

EX

PE

NS

ES

:L

un

ch

eo

nV

88

Be

g,D

ev

,Stu

d,C

ele

b H

on

ors

-Wk

sh

op

sV

88

Bre

ak

fas

ts (

inc

lud

es

Id

ea

Ma

rke

t)V

88

Su

nd

ay

Ro

lls &

Co

ffe

eV

88

11

4,4

00

18

1,6

66

11

0,0

00

11

4,8

70

99

,40

01

49

,92

29

9,1

60

Re

ce

pti

on

(P

res

ide

nti

al)

V8

8S

tud

en

t C

au

cu

s (

sn

ac

k)

V8

8W

elc

om

eV

88

Mis

c l

un

ch

es

& s

na

ck

sV

88

AV

Co

sts

(A

ud

io V

isu

al)

F8

81

2,2

25

29

,14

41

2,0

00

16

,78

01

2,0

00

11

,37

71

1,6

34

Sp

ea

ke

rsF

89

12

,00

01

3,4

88

12

,50

01

0,5

00

12

,00

08

,97

58

,90

0

Pri

nti

ng

F9

01

3,5

00

13

,19

61

6,0

00

24

,88

07

,00

06

,65

41

1,1

87

Co

mp

ute

r/P

rin

ter

Re

nta

lF

93

2,9

00

2,9

00

2,9

00

2,9

00

2,9

00

2,9

00

Ph

on

es

/Fa

xF

91

Ph

oto

co

py

F9

15

,00

04

,14

86

,00

06

,34

78

,00

08

,37

59

,96

7

Po

sta

ge

F9

1M

isc

.

(C)

F9

10

00

00

Fe

e f

or

Na

me

Ba

dg

es

V9

22

,27

53

,27

82

,70

03

,41

42

,10

02

,28

32

,43

2

Co

nfB

ure

au

Te

mp

s(I

nd

ep

Co

ntr

ac

tors

)F

93

2,0

00

3,2

43

2,0

00

1,9

31

2,0

00

1,2

83

2,0

85

Cit

y a

s T

ex

tF

94

2,0

00

1,9

08

4,0

00

1,0

71

2,5

00

4,0

00

2,2

65

Sig

na

ge

F9

52

,00

01

,62

32

,00

01

,63

75

00

1,7

57

1,8

50

Lo

ca

l A

rra

ng

em

en

ts(I

nc

l a

dm

is,t

ran

s)

V9

72

,00

01

0,0

00

En

tert

ain

me

nt

V9

7G

ala

V9

73

3,0

00

12

4,3

21

68

,50

01

35

,97

57

9,4

00

19

,33

41

01

,05

1

Stu

de

nt

Fu

nc

tio

nV

97

1,2

00

2,0

00

Ba

nk

Se

rvic

e C

ha

rge

F9

80

00

20

01

72

43

2

Ad

ve

rtis

ing

F

99

6,5

00

6,4

55

6,0

00

4,7

19

6,0

00

6,1

63

5,7

65

Co

nfe

ren

ce

Pla

nn

ing

& S

ite

Vis

itF

10

01

3,5

00

13

,63

31

3,5

00

17

,20

21

0,0

00

15

,12

71

2,4

46

CM

S W

ag

es

V1

15

35

,00

04

6,8

30

30

,00

05

0,0

18

36

,00

03

6,0

71

40

,68

2

Pro

gra

m P

lan

ne

r F

ee

(ne

w a

cc

t 1

99

9)

F1

38

3,0

00

4,0

61

6,0

00

2,8

26

6,0

00

5,7

82

Se

cu

rity

F1

34

50

07

50

1,2

00

77

40

58

5

AD

A (

co

mp

lian

ce

fo

r d

ea

f)F

13

56

,00

09

,33

93

,00

07

,88

14

,00

03

,10

03

82

Cre

dit

Ca

rd F

ee

sF

13

64

,00

04

,36

64

,00

04

,14

53

,00

02

,97

82

,55

1

Co

nti

ng

en

cy

/Ad

jus

tme

nts

(C

)F

0(5

,21

7)

A

TO

TA

L E

XP

EN

SE

S0

27

3,0

00

46

4,3

47

31

4,3

00

40

7,8

72

29

3,0

00

28

6,2

53

30

8,1

57

NE

T I

NC

OM

E (

LO

SS

)0

0(7

5,3

77

)7

00

32

,36

11

,00

06

0,2

30

2,9

10

A -

Ad

jus

tme

nt

of

$5

,21

7 i

s f

or

19

97

ex

pe

ns

es

re

co

rde

d i

n 1

99

8.

F-F

ixe

d E

xpe

ns

es

B-$

AA

Lib

rlE

dn

;$C

reig

hto

n;$

NY

Tim

es

;$P

BK

;$P

KP

;$S

elf

;$U

tah

;$W

as

hC

tr;$

Ts

hir

ts;$

Bo

ok

Sa

les

.V

-Va

ria

ble

Ex

pe

ns

es

C-B

eg

inn

ing

19

98

, M

isc

elim

ina

ted

; fo

r b

ud

ge

tin

g C

on

tin

ge

nc

y h

as

no

FN

ac

ct

no

.; a

ctu

al

exp

en

se

s w

ill b

e a

lloc

ate

d t

o F

N a

cc

ou

nts

.A

cc

t -A

cc

ou

nt

#,N

CH

C a

cc

tin

g s

oft

wa

re

LE

GE

ND

CO

NF

ER

EN

CE

PR

OJE

CT

ION

WO

RK

SH

EE

T

TH

IS IS

A W

OR

KIN

G D

OC

UM

EN

T U

SE

D F

OR

CO

NF

ER

EN

CE

PL

AN

NIN

G O

NLY


Conference Financial History

MISSION OF THE TWO-YEAR COLLEGE COMMITTEE

� Encourage and assist two-year colleges in the development of honors programs� Develop a network of lower division honors programs� Identify other organizations of similar concern working within the context of two-year colleges� Develop a set of sessions for the annual conference� Contribute to NCHC periodicals and occasional publications material upon two-year college honors programs� Report regularly in writing to the Executive Committee

Check out the Two-Year College Committee�s website at http://2yr-nchc.nhmccd.edu/index.html

Conference Information

Site/Year/Hotel Attendance Reg fee* Room costs Rm Nights High Nights Rm Nights food/bevcontracted used hotel bill

New Orleans 1989/Marriott 975 $135 $61 on averageBaltimore 1990/Hyatt Regency 1037 $125 $64.50 on averageChicago 1991/Palmer House 1141 $150 $70 on averageLos Angeles 1992/Hilton 713 $150 $101s/$146d 1950 th/fr 500St Louis 1993/Hyatt Regency 1295 $175 $71s/$81d 1800 th/fr 425San Antonio 1994/Hyatt Regency 1267 $175 $125s/$145d 2005 th/fr 600Pittsburgh 1995/Hilton and Towers 1211 $180 $105s/$115d 1980 th 550San Francisco 1996/Hilton and Towers 1246 $180 $170s/$195d 2350 th/fr 600Atlanta 1997/Hilton 1479 $180 $126s/$140d + $15ea 2025 th/fr 550 $76,258Chicago 1998/Hilton 1621 $180 $134s/$149dtq 2170 th/fr 600 2314 $99,160Orlando 1999/Renaissance 1522 $210 $169s/d + $20ea add 1700 fr 600 1686 $149,922Washington 2000/Hilton 1949 $210 $157s/$189dtq 2101 th/fr 575 1975 $114,870Chicago 2001/Hilton 1873 $210 $159s/$189dtq 2768 fr 765 2853 $181,666Salt Lake City 2002/Grand America $210 $159s/d + $20ea add 2380 th/fr 600Chicago 2003/Hilton $176.25s (max) 2630 fr 765

$212.71d/t/q (max)New Orleans 2004/Hyatt $189s/d 2605 fr 745

$209/t/q

Room Nights SUN M TU W TH FR SAT SUN M Totals1997 Atlanta (Hilton) Room nights contracted for 100 425 550 550 400 2025 Room nights used1998 Chicago (Palmer House) Room nights contracted for 75 265 620 630 575 5 2170 Room nights used 34 489 720 724 343 4 23141999 Orlando (Renaissance) Room nights contracted for 40 325 500 505 330 1700 Room nights used 2 4 48 327 461 472 359 19 1 16862000 Washington (Hilton) Room nights contracted for 23 408 575 575 495 25 2101 Room nights used 15 361 524 527 494 4 19252001 Chicago (Palmer House) Room nights contracted for 8 67 624 743 736 594 4 2768 Room nights used 2 54 621 796 782 592 8 28532002 Salt Lake City (Grand America) Room nights contracted for 5 20 200 400 600 600 550 5 2380 Room nights used 02003 Chicago (Palmer House) Room nights contracted for 5 40 500 760 765 550 10 2630 Room nights used 02004 New Orleans (Hyatt) Room nights contracted for 5 80 480 740 745 545 10 2605 Room nights used 0

*Until 1993 there was a student fee for registration, typically $20-35 less.


Membership Dues from 1980 -2002

Some history may be useful. The membership last voted to increase dues at the annual business meeting held in SanFrancisco November 2, 1996. Institutional Membership dues increased from $200 to $250 (with the proviso thatthis increase would allow the director and four faculty members to attend the conference at the member rate�allstudents could already attend at the member rate. In 1997 the Bylaws were amended to permit all faculty from aMember institution to attend at the Member rate). Professional membership dues increased from $35 to $50 forprofessionals whose institutions held active membership. Student dues were not increased at this time. A new dues-paying category was established for Professional Members whose institutions did not hold active membership. Thisfee was set at $125. Below is a visual representation of dues increases since 1980:

Total (12/31) InstitutionalYear Type Current New Effective date Membership Membership (12/31)1980 Institutional $60.00 $80.00 January 1981 1980: 539 214

Professional $10.00 $15.00 1981: 685 230Students $ 5.00 $ 7.50 1982: 566 236

1983: 660 255

1984 Institutional $80.00 $100.00 January 1985 1984: 832 310Professional $15.00 $ 25.00 1985: 741 336Students $ 7.50 $ 12.00 1986: 925 375

1987: 884 3921988: 948 480

1989 Institutional $100.00 $200.00 January 1990 1989: 1116 535Professional $ 25.00 $ 35.00 1990: 991 490Students $ 12.00 $ 15.00 1991: 1011 477

1992: 1089 513

1993 Students $ 15.00 $ 35.00 January 1994 1993: 1129 540(a decision of the student members of the Exec Cmte.) 1994: 1211 561

1995: 1028 504

1996 Institutional $200.00 $250.00 January 1997 1996: 1153 578Professional $ 35.00 $ 50.00 1997: 1133 587Prof (non-member Inst) $125.00 1998: 1141 666Students $ 35.00 remained the same 1999: 1138 677

2000: 1142 7522001: 1210 782

Note to ContributorsSend your articles or announcements over e-mail or on disk (Word preferred) to Margaret Brown <email

[email protected]> or 606 Third Avenue, Radford, VA 24141. Use J-Peg for art. No faxes, unless hardcopy for an article or announcement already sent electronically; fax 540-831-5004 in that situation only.

Articles can be 1000-5000 words, informal. For new-to-experienced honors deans, directors, faculty, andstudents. The practical aspect of honors: recruiting; advising & retention; curriculum; teaching & learning,including service learning; experiential learning & study abroad; preparation for internships, major scholar-ships, and post-graduate education; also honors space, budgets, staffing, honors student housing & associa-tions. Announcements: three to four months� lead-time. No paid or commercial announcements.(Sorry, no poetry. Articles on �Best Course I Ever Taught/Took� discouraged. Formal, researched papersshould be sent to Journal of the NCH, c/o Ada Long, University of Alabama, Birmingham; <[email protected]> for information.)


1996 SF 1997 ATL 1998 CHI 1999 ORL 2000 DC 2001 CHImembers attending institution(I) 237 313 375 343 383 444 committee chairs [(I) not in their name] 6 8 11 6 13 7 executive cmte members [not (I)] 5 11 10 7 7 9 officers [not (I)] 1 1 1 1 1 1 honorary lifetime members 5 3 4 5 2 1 former officers [not (I)] 4 8 3 3 6 4

professional/affiliate 154 160 144 134 155 154 student 25 66 55 60 50 16total members attending 437 570 603 559 617 636

non-members whose (I) is member 659 807 981 945 1264 1142

non-members attending 118 6 0 0 17 18 guests 11 5 9 6 29 24 complimentary/other 15 6 13 10 10 45 #

one day attendees 6 85 * 15 2 12 8total attendees 1246 ** 1479 *** 1621 1522 1949 ***** 1873 ******

presenters not listed as CMS' registrant 112 118 50 105 249 191 ## (did not attend conference)

number of institutions attending 375 402 457 452 496 482Member Inst attending as % of total inst attending 63.20% 77.86% 82.06% 75.88% 77.22% 92.12%

# of inst attending (which attended previous yr) 266 269 284 314 352 372

percentage of institutions returning 65.68% 71.73% 70.65% 68.71% 77.88% 75.00%

number of new directors attending (self-reported) N/A N/A N/A N/A 55 79number new directors' institutions attending next conference 39% returning 70.91%

student attendees, (%) 553 (44%) 687 (46%) 770 (47.5%) 700 (46%) **** 950 (48%) **** 918 (49%) ****

number of sessions/number of presentations 11/275 12/230 10/186 8/124 15/301 10/322

number of presenters 585 655 648 719 1146 1062student presenters, (%) 358 (61%) 419 (64%) 331 (51%) 450 (64%) **** 693 (60%) 614 (58%)

Institution Attendance by Region SAN FRAN ATLANTA CHICAGO ORLANDO WASH DC CHICAGONortheast 80 96 102 113 110 96Southern 94 115 112 120 123 111MidEast 38 38 44 40 43 56UpperMidwest 40 45 59 51 66 73Great Plains 52 51 66 65 72 74Western 62 51 66 58 73 64Others 9 6 8 5 9 8

375 402 457 452 496 482

* approx 50 attended Honors Semesters reunion** CMS gives official figure as 1205 but list of registrants totals 1246*** CMS gives official figure as 1484 but list of registrants total 1479****CMS attendance list for 1999 did not designate student attendeees. So, the numbers are an estimate.*****CMS gives official figure as 1951 but list of registrants totals 1949# 29 of these were agencies considering proposing to manage 2004 conference.## 19 of these were individuals involved in the pre-conference summit; this does not include those requesting refunds who were on the program but did not attend.*******CMS charged us for 1865 registrants

Individuals attending the national conference by region (based on a sample of 200 individuals)

Location Year NE SR ME UM GP WR Other Total

San Fran 1996 26 (13%) 55 (27.5%) 32 (16%) 28 (14%) 29 (14.5%) 30 (15%) 0 (0%) 200 (100%)

Chicago 1998 30 (15%) 59 (29.5%) 24 (12%) 28 (14%) 32 (16%) 26 (13%) 1 (.5%) 200 (100%)

Wash, DC 2000 42 (21%) 56 (28%) 26 (13%) 18 (9%) 28 (14%) 30 (15%) 0 (0%) 200 (100%)

Chicago 2001 42 (21%) 55 (27.5%) 30 (15%) 19 (9.5%) 27 (13.5%) 27 (13.5%) 0 (0%) 200 (100%)

CONFERENCE ATTENDEES 1996-2001

THIS IS A WORKING DOCUMENT USED FOR CONFERENCE PLANNING ONLY


�To join the honors listserv at George Washington University, email<[email protected]> with the following command: <sub honors (putyour name here)>. The listserv will automatically pick up your email address.

�To post to the list after subscribing, mail your message to<[email protected]>.

�If you have problems with the listserv itself, contact the webmaster at<[email protected]>.

�To remove your name from the listserv, send the command <unsub honors yourname> in the first line of the message box to <[email protected]>.

Regions Regional Inst Members NCHC Inst Members by Region2001 in NCHC % 2001* 2000 1999

NE-NCHC 227 158 0.70 211 208 205

MidEast 20 20 1.00 82 72 80

Southern 129 113 0.88 184 170 185

Upper Midwest 40 37 0.93 83 83 82

Great Plains 96 87 0.91 108 104 104

Western 212 103 0.49 112 105 108

*Note: 53 institutions in the NE-NCHC hold memberships in the NCHCbut do not hold memberships in the NE-NCHC. Similar numbers occur in each of the other 5 regions, although the disparity is less.

Regional Memberships

OUR FRIENDS, THE PORTZES

John Portz and his wife Edythe, long time supporters of the NCHC, are in ill healthand no longer able to contribute to the Portz Fund and Portz Scholars. John, formerlydirector of honors at the University of Maryland, served the NCHC in many capaci-ties. He is a past Executive Secretary/Treasurer, founder of The National HonorsReport, and its editor. Old friends can contact John through his nurse, JeannineBalogh, 403 SW 29th Place, Cape Coral, FL 33991.


The committee had two agenda items:

I: Recommend a balanced revenue and expense budgetfor 2003.

II: Prepare a summary of estimated dues increasesnecessary to fund the position of ExecutiveDirector as proposed by the Long RangePlanning Committee.

I: The committee approved a recommended budget,with the following changes to the Financial Requestsreceived.

A) Increase projected revenues by $5,000B) Reduce headquarters operating budget by $2,500 and

headquarters travel budget by $2,500. This was doneat the suggestion of a headquarters representative.

C) Reduce the Awards for Contribution in Honorsbudget by $2,000. The committee thought that a�travelling� award would be more cost effective.

D) Reduce Publications Board operating expensesbudget by $500. The committee thought the boardcould meet at a regional conference, which wouldeliminate this expense.

E) Reduce Publications Board travel request budget by$1,000. The board may not be reimbursed for travel.

F) Reduce the Monograph Publication budget by$3,700. The organization cannot afford to publishtwo monographs this year.

Earl Brown, EST, will notify all committees/commis-sions that requested funding of the Finance Committeerecommendations.

In the course of examining the budget requests thecommittee also created a list of recommendations to gobefore the Executive Committee. These requests are:

A) to reconsider Standing Orders that constrain theFinance Committee

B) to rule that the Finance Committee must approve anyand all request for monies before the ExecutiveCommittee votes on said requests

C) to reinstate the Investment Committee, or create asubcommittee within the Finance Committee to moreclosely oversee the organization�s investments andhave at least quarterly conference calls with itsinvestment manager

D) to give Finance Committee oversight of all theorganization�s accounts, and how monies are spentfrom these accounts

E) to require that the respective outgoing and incomingEST/ED have audits performed

F) to authorize the Finance Committee to recommendconference registration and projected revenue for theProgram Planning Committee. (The committee alsoidentified some cost cutting measures in this area)

G) to reevaluate the Retreat and the expense of itH) to investigate a progressive dues structure

II: The summary of the projected dues increase neces-sary to fund the office of Executive Director isattached.

The meeting was adjourned.

Respectively Submitted,Jacci L. Rodgers, Co-Chair Finance Committee

NCHC Finance Committee MinutesNCHC Finance Committee MinutesNCHC Finance Committee MinutesNCHC Finance Committee MinutesNCHC Finance Committee MinutesApril 19 and 20, 2002April 19 and 20, 2002April 19 and 20, 2002April 19 and 20, 2002April 19 and 20, 2002

The Finance Committee met in conjunction with the Great Plains Honors Conference in Ft. Worth.

Members present were: Liz Beck, Gary Bell, Ron Brandolini, Earl Brown, Jacci Rodgers, Philip Way

CALL FOR PAPERSJournal of the National Collegiate Honors Council

JNCHC is accepting articles for its next issue dedicated to �Technology in Honors.� The deadline for submissions isSeptember 1, 2002. Submissions and inquiries should be directed to Ada Long, JNCHC, UAB Honors Program, 1530 Third

Ave. South, Birmingham, AL 35294-4450. Phone: (205) 934-3228; Fax: (205) 975-5493; Email: [email protected].


National Collegiate Honors CouncilReport on Dues Increase to Support Executive Director

Prepared by the Finance CommitteeApril 19-20, 2002

The Finance Committee was charged by the Executive Committee to prepare an estimated dues increase that wouldbe necessary to support an office of Executive Director. The creation of this position would eliminate the positionof EST as it is currently defined. The proposed dues increase outlined below is in addition to the $50 duesincrease that the Finance Committee recommended last year.

The committee went beyond the charge as it was given and prepared estimates for four different scenarios: 1) Theposition and location as defined by the Long-Range Planning Committee with the costs given; 2) The position andlocation as defined by the Long-Range Planning Committee, with costs the committee thought were more reason-able and inclusive; 3) The position as defined by the Long-Range Planning Committee, housed on a collegecampus; and 4) Continuing with an EST, with adjustments. Each of these scenarios, and its respective costs isshown below. For each scenario, the committee assumed that institutional memberships would bear the increase.Seven hundred and fifty institutional members were estimated.

Scenario OneLRP Budget $253,000less current headquarter funding 128,000Additional funding needed $125,000

125,000/750 = $167 increase

Scenario TwoExecutive Director, Salary and Benefits $115,000Admin. Asst., Salary and Benefits 50,000Accountant, Salary and Benefits 50,000Operating Expenses 67,000Entertainment Expenses 5,000Rent 40,000Travel 15,000Equipment and Furniture 7,000Total Budget per Fin. Com. $349,000less current headquarter funding 128,000Additional funding needed $221,000

221,000/750= $295 increase

Scenario Three

Executive Director, Salary and Benefits $100,000Admin. Asst., Salary and Benefits 50,000*Accountant, Salary and Benefits 50,000Operating Expenses 55,000Entertainment Expenses 5,000Travel 15,000Total Budget/ED on college campus $275,000less current headquarter funding 128,000Additional funding needed $147,000*$15,000 to be paid from conference 15,000net funds needed $132,000

132,000/750= $176 increase

Scenario Four

Operating funds remain as currently figured. Fiftythousand dollar buy-out paid to host university.

Additional funds needed $ 50,000

50,000/750 = $67 increase

Summary

Each of the scenarios requires a dues increase overand above the proposed $50 increase the FinanceCommittee thinks is necessary to maintain status quo.

The Finance Committee recognizes that all amountsused in these scenarios are estimates, and could beover- or understated.

Given the amounts of the increases, the FinanceCommittee would like the Executive Committee toproceed very cautiously in pursuing this matter. Forthe past two years the Finance Committee had torecommend cuts to funding requests. The organiza-tion is unable to conduct the business it wishes toconduct at its current funding level. The committeeexpressed great concern that going forward with thisendeavor could greatly harm the organization, and itsability to pursue its mission.


...AND FOR A CHANGE...AND FOR A CHANGE...AND FOR A CHANGE...AND FOR A CHANGE...AND FOR A CHANGE

�These Are The Times��These Are The Times��These Are The Times��These Are The Times��These Are The Times�By John M. PalmsBy John M. PalmsBy John M. PalmsBy John M. PalmsBy John M. Palms

President, University of South CarolinaPresident, University of South CarolinaPresident, University of South CarolinaPresident, University of South CarolinaPresident, University of South CarolinaAnd First Recipient of the NCHC Leadership Award, 2001And First Recipient of the NCHC Leadership Award, 2001And First Recipient of the NCHC Leadership Award, 2001And First Recipient of the NCHC Leadership Award, 2001And First Recipient of the NCHC Leadership Award, 2001

[Editor�s Note: We appreciate Dr. Palms� sharing his keynote address made at the Southern Regional HonorsCouncil�s Thirtieth Annual Conference in Atlanta, March 22, 2002; with Gail S. Widner.]

Thank you for inviting me to be with you today. I understand the theme for this year�s conference is �Squaring theCircle: Tradition, Change, Development, and Honors.�

In pondering what I would say to you this afternoon that would connect to this theme, I thought about manyissues facing honors education, especially in the South: lower state appropriations for higher education, a growingschool age population, and keen competition to keep our honors students interested in staying in the South.

I could talk about the irony of excellent honors programs in a region famous for its anti-intellectualism. As themedia and the popular imagination define us�at least until rather recently�our tradition is marked by a defiantignorance, a proud disdain for education, within a culture steeped in racism and chauvinism. It is not a heritage thatwould seemingly be the best breading ground for excellent honors programs.

strength and purpose of an honorscollege in a way that few otherevents or issues can.

Seeing these students reachbeyond their own personal griefrecalled to me a passage I read lastyear in David McCullough�sbiography of John Adams. Thepassage comes from a letterAbigail Adams wrote in 1779 toher teen-aged son, John Quincy, ashe prepared to accompany hisfather to France. She wrote:

These are the times in which agenius would want to live. It isnot in the still calm of life, orthe repose of a pacific station,that great characters areformed. The habits of avigorous mind are formed incontending with difficulties.Great necessities call out greatvirtues. When a mind is raised,and animated by scenes thatengage the heart, then thosequalities, which would other-wise lay dormant, wake into

Or, I could discuss the ridiculousidea, reflective of the changes inour culture, proposed by a writerfrom U.S. News & World Report,that honors colleges serve as�educational boutiques� in the�mega malls of higher education.�On second thought, no, I couldn�t.

Instead, the topic unceremoni-ously came to me two weeks ago,when one of our brightest honorscollege seniors was killed andanother seriously injured in terriblecar accident. Four studentstraveling to Florida on Springbreak, five minutes from theirdestination. The student who diedwas a young, vivacious, giftedwoman whose life and career laybrilliantly ahead of her.

Suddenly, I no longer wanted totalk about statistics or the tasks weface in the South. While these areviable topics, they do not speak tothe heart of what makes honorsprograms succeed. They do notaccount for why honors programsare so important for the future of

our region and in the lives of ourstudents and our faculty. But, I alsodidn�t want to come here andgrieve with you, or lapse intosentimentalities that would simplyobjectify the sudden death of ayoung woman.

Instead, I want to focus on theresponse to this tragedy. Many ofour other honors students spenttheir spring break trying to help thefamilies involved, running errands,communicating information withthe university, and consoling eachother. The administration, staff, andfaculty worked together to helpcreate a plan to support thesestudents, those immediatelyinvolved in the accident, and theirfamilies.

Rather than the paralysis thatoften comes from shock, thebehavior of the students, as well asthat of our faculty, honors collegeadministration, and studentservices personnel, has beenheartwarming and genuinelyreassuring. It has demonstrated the


life and form the character ofthe hero and the statesman.

Some features of these linesstrike me as particularly relevant toany discussion of honors educa-tion.

Mrs. Adams first proposes �[i]tis not in the still calm of life, or therepose of a pacific station, thatgreat characters are formed. Thehabits of a vigorous mind areformed in contending with difficul-ties.� Learning is fundamentallyactive and definitely relational.Learning shapes character. Theseare the powerful keys to education,particularly honors education.

Second, she writes from a firmbelief in the primacy of characterand service as the ultimate goal ofhuman life. After all, �greatnecessities call out great virtues�for a reason, and the hero and thestatesman do not live in isolation.

All of us in this room, I believe,understand that genuine learningand growth are the product ofinteraction between two (or more)forces, forces contending with eachother. Perhaps it is the mindstruggling with a book, a theorum,or a research question. Honorscolleges nourish such academicdifficulty and rigor.

Through intense courses ofstudy, research opportunities,fieldwork, and senior projects,honors students are required tocontend with tough, and ofteninterdisciplinary, intellectual issuesand problems. Such a curriculumcompels these students to confrontprimary information and data firsthand, to evaluate hypotheses, testprior assumptions, and reviseconclusions.

Looking back, my senior projectat The Citadel enabled me tounderstand the value of �contend-ing with difficulty.� All seniors atThe Citadel were required toproduce a senior research project.We spent a year in the process,talking with each other,

conferencing with faculty about theproject�s scope and ramifications.The process was intense, cheeringeach successful step towardcompletion and helping each otherthrough rough spots when theproblem seemingly defied analysis.When we submitted our finishedprojects, the feeling of achieve-ment was palpable.

Because learning relies on and isshaped by relationships, honorscolleges must provide not only anatmosphere that necessitatescontending with difficulties, they

must also offer the support neededto do so successfully.

To this end, we know thatstudents will not enroll in anhonors college simply for itsintellectual appeal. They do notwant to be seen or treated simplyas talented intellects trapped inbodies with troublesome appear. Inrecent years, studies have shownthat students choose honorsprograms based on the level ofdirect, personal support theyreceive�from initial advisement tomentoring�and the quality ofconnection we provide.

A personal level of support is asimportant as the course scheduleand selection. We see this supportin the one-to-one relationshipsfaculty have with students, amentoring relationship thatstudents repeatedly cite as the mostimportant part of their learning.Honors programs promote thisrelationship through small class

sizes, guided independent andsenior research projects, andfrequent occasions where facultyand students can get to know eachother.

And, having been both menteeand mentor, I know that thisrelationship is also equally impor-tant to the established teachingscholar, who yearns for hungryminds who share the passion for thediscipline and the style of thought itfosters. Only in teaching the newscholar, and in watching that scholarapproach the discipline with apassion, can we see the future of ourwork.

This continual process developsand strengthens the mind AND thecharacter. As Eric Ashby oncenoted, �The very discipline ofscholarship carries its own ethicalvalues�.Moral decadence, insin-cerity, [and] projucide are incom-patible with intellectual health.� Avigorous mind reveres truth andtolerates difference. At the Univer-sity of South Carolina, our motto,which was selected in 1803, alsosubscribes to this ideal. Our mottotranslates as �learning humanizescharacter and does not permit it tobe cruel.� A vigorous mind seeksunderstanding, connection, andapplication, and that search requirescivility, honesty, and compassion.

Mrs. Adams also explains howlearning occurs and forms character:�When a mind is raised, andanimated by scenes that engage theheart, then those qualities whichwould otherwise lay dormant, wakeinto life.� Character is forged, then,when the vigorous mind andpersonal experience are jointlyacted upon by �scenes that engagethe heart.� When the intellect,experience, and emotion combine,character and learning result.

These ideas remind us of theimportance of engaging the wholeperson in the learning process. Bycreating an environment thatstretches students� hearts as well astheir intellects, honors programs

�Because learning relies onand is shaped by relation-

ships, honors colleges mustprovide not only an atmo-sphere that necessitates

contending with difficulties,they must also offer thesupport needed to do so

successfully.�


effectively educate the total person.Extracurricular activities, indepen-dent research, service learning, andcooperative learning opportunitiesare a few of the ways that honorsprograms are cultivating the wholestudent.

But Mrs. Adams does not endthere. She concludes her statementwith the idea that contending withdifficulties and engaging the heartforge �the character of the hero andthe statesman.� Not the hermit, notthe loner, not the cynic. But, thehero and the statesman.As Mrs. Adams presentsit, the habits of a vigor-ous mind are importantnot as ends unto them butbecause they protect andpromote the health of oursociety.

I have already mentioned thatlearning is relational, that it is doesnot happen with ease nor does itoccurs in isolation. And, I havealready remarked on the fact thathonors students evaluate thequality of life and support inchoosing honors programs. And, inhonors residence halls, we are ableto see all of these forces at work:struggle, support, and fellowship.In their dorm, students livetogether, encourage each other, andteach each other. They learn todisagree, with civility. They learnto appreciate difference. They havepoetry readings, musical perfor-mances, moviethons, studysessions, and all-night conversa-tions. It is HOW great ideas areborn.

These personal connectionscreate a sense of community, ofshared values and mutual caring,that gives a student the confidenceto negotiate any difficulty withresolve.

In such an environment, theindividual feels the responsibilityto apply the intellect and thecharacter to the community�sprosperity.

To help foster a larger sense ofcommunity, Honors Collegethroughout the country are nowadding service learning compo-nents. Offering service opportuni-ties ensures that gifted studentsrealize the significance of theirtalents and their participation.Whether delivering Meals-On-Wheels, serving as a Big Brotheror Sister, reading to the elderly ortutoring elementary schoolchildren, each person can�andshould�make a difference.

Service learning reaffirms for ourstudents their importance asindividuals. And, it also reaffirmsfor them a direct awareness ofbelonging to something larger thanthemselves, their dorm, and theirimmediate families.

Honors programs can guidestudents toward knowing theirindividual value and their commonduty. I say �duty� because we allshare a responsibility to work forthe good of the whole. As honorscolleges, part of our responsibilityto society is to help honorsstudents shape their lives. We as aculture make this investment in thehope that one day these studentswill not only fulfill their personalambitions but also lead ourschools, businesses, universities,and communities. If the South isgoing to compete economically andimprove the quality of life for allour citizens, then we need the giftsand the style of thought that honorsstudents possess.

Again, we return to issues ofcharacter, relationships, andcommunity. By offering rigor,mentoring, fellowship, andopportunities to serve, honors

programs enable gifted studentsto recognize the close relation-ship among their talents, theirindividuality, and the largercommunity.

In their response to aclassmate�s death, our studentsand our honors communityacted with caring and compas-sion and a sense of service. At aterrible moment in their lives,these young adults did notimplode or withdraw. Theygrew. That they did so tells us

that AbigailAdams was right:contending witha potentiallyoverwhelmingdifficulty, adifficulty fraughtwith emotional

impact, can call out greatness inour character. Seeing thisresponse reassures me that thisis indeed a time in whichgeniuses �would want to live�and that honors programs canshow them how.

ReferencesAdams, Abigail. Letter to John

Quincy Adams. Qtd. in JohnAdams by DavidMcCullough (New York:Simon and Schuster, 2001),226.

Ashby, Eric. �Ivory Towers inTomorrow�s World.� Journalof Higher Education 38.8(Nov 1967), 426.

Fischer, David. �The NewHonors Programs.� U.S.News & World Report 121.11(Sept 16 1996), 108.

�Extracurricular activities, independent research,service learning, and cooperative learning

opportunities are a few of the ways that honorsprograms are cultivating the whole student.�


�Honors Professor as Honors Student��Honors Professor as Honors Student��Honors Professor as Honors Student��Honors Professor as Honors Student��Honors Professor as Honors Student�By Norma StratemeierBy Norma StratemeierBy Norma StratemeierBy Norma StratemeierBy Norma Stratemeier

Johnson County Community CollegeJohnson County Community CollegeJohnson County Community CollegeJohnson County Community CollegeJohnson County Community College

IntroductionIntroductionIntroductionIntroductionIntroductionby Ruth Fox, Honors Program Co-Cordinatorby Ruth Fox, Honors Program Co-Cordinatorby Ruth Fox, Honors Program Co-Cordinatorby Ruth Fox, Honors Program Co-Cordinatorby Ruth Fox, Honors Program Co-Cordinator

Johnson County Community CollegeJohnson County Community CollegeJohnson County Community CollegeJohnson County Community CollegeJohnson County Community College

The Johnson County Community College Honors Program offers 165 honors contracts that are not stand-aloneentities but are extensions of non-honors courses. The course outlines and the objectives for the contract arepatterned from the non-honors course goals, but they typically allow students to focus on a particular area ofstudy in a one-to-one mentoring situation.

Recently, our program had a unique situation when one of our own honors faculty members in our paralegalprogram, Norma Stratemeier, decided to take an honors contract with a course she was taking. When I asked herto write an article for our program newsletter, I received the strongest testimony I�ve ever heard. Having been onboth sides of the contract experience gave Norma a new perspective of the process and program. Here is Norma�saccount.

I was delighted by the invitation to serve as thismonth�s spotlighted mentor [at Johnson County Com-munity College] because I think I have a uniqueperspective on the honors experience. Many times I�vehad the pleasure of acting as mentor to students whohave enrolled in honors contracts along with mycourses; recently, however, I was privileged to see theother side of the coin, and I�d like to share that experi-ence with you.

Last semester, as a student myself, I enrolled in anhonors contract here at Johnson County CommunityCollege. And while I have long appreciated the opportu-nities offered any student by the honors contract option,my own experience as an honors student has persuadedme of the unique and very special value of this offering.

For more than fifteen years, I�ve taught courses in twolaw-level programs here at Johnson County CommunityCollege (the Paralegal and the Legal Nurse ConsultantPrograms). Although my love for teaching law has in noway diminished, about three years ago, I developed anacademic itch that drove me back into the classroom asa student. It took me a while to figure out what I waslooking for. Then I discovered Forensic Anthropologyand everything fell into place; this is the disciplinewhere all my passions mesh. Because I need a fewadditional undergraduate courses before I can enter agraduate program in Anthropology, it appears I�ll betaking courses here at Johnson County CommunityCollege for a little while longer.

Last fall, I enrolled in Human Anatomy and itsaccompanying honors contract. I didn�t do it because Ineeded another hour of credit or because it would lookgood on my transcript. Already enrolled in seven credithours (in addition to teaching my regular full-timecourse load), this additional burden of an honorscontract was the last thing I needed. But the opportunityto explore this subject in a different way and to relatethat study to my own particular interests represented anoffer I couldn�t refuse. True to my expectations,satisfying the requirements of both the classroom course

and the honors contract forced me to work my tail off,and I frequently wondered what had possessed me tothink I could juggle all those demands. Nevertheless, Imust tell you it was the richest and most rewardingacademic experienced I have ever had, anywhere, and Iwouldn�t have missed it for the world.

Every honors contract is different. Mine, for example,offered me the opportunity to learn more about thehistory of anatomical study, participate in a true hands-on examination of an anatomy-related rare bookcollection, visit a medical school human dissection lab,and observe an autopsy. My contract also required me

�I frequently wondered what hadpossessed me to juggle all those demands.�


to research, write, and publicly present a paper on ananatomy-related topic. In my case, I selected a topicrelated to my interest in forensics and death investiga-tions.

The result? Not only did I survive, I flourished.Semester�s end found me exhausted, yet immenselyfulfilled. Any residual doubts that I was headed in theright direction were eradicated. I began the semesterinterested and motivated; I emerged impassioned anddriven. I loved everyminute of it, and wasprofoundly grateful for thisopportunity to pursue aninterest that had assumedcompelling and consumingproportions.

How I wish each of myown students couldexperience the same thrill of discovery, the same senseof accomplishment and gratification. Who among theteaching community would not? For is this not thelearning experience at its very best?

The honors contract is a well-honed (yet under-used)tool for stimulating student interest and enhancing thelearning process. A well-crafted honors contract willprovide the learners with the opportunity to seek anddiscover, to labor and be rewarded. An effective honorscontract will require that the student perform certaininstructor-defined tasks but will allow for the tailoringthat will enable each individual student to address hisown needs and interests. Optimally, the honors contractexperience will enable the student to become moreknowledgeable about one or multiple aspects of thesubjects; to think independently, critically, and cre-atively; to develop good time-management and organi-zation skills; to learn how to work independently; and torealize that one is responsible for one�s own education.Most important of all, the honors contract allows thestudent to experience the joy of learning.

Is the honors contract for every student? Can everystudent benefit? Of course not. We�ve all had studentswho are both astonished and horrified to discover theyare expected to work for a grade. If you offer them anopportunity to do extra work, they will think you arecrazy.

But I think we sometimes underestimate the numberof students who hunger for enhanced intellectualchallenge, who would embrace the chance to prove andimprove their competencies, and would be grateful foropportunities to reach beyond the classroom material in

a quest to address more personal interests. If we don�trespond to those needs, we cheat those students andourselves. Like so many of my colleagues, I became ateacher because I wanted to make a difference.Encouraging students to use the honors contract optionto address their individual academic needs can assistboth student and teacher in moving closer to theirrespective goals. I do not believe that my own experi-ence as an honors student was unique. I�m persuadedthat many more students would take advantage of the

honors contract option,were they more aware ofits existence and benefits,and I believe many of uscould be doing more topromote its use.

The number ofJohnson County Commu-

nity College courses offering honors contracts areimpressive, but we could do better. More of us coulddevelop contracts for additional courses. More of uscould commit to mentoring honors students. Those ofus who currently offer honors contracts could marketthem more enthusiastically and persuasively to ourstudents. I�ve heard some of my colleagues remark thatit�s too much trouble to design a good contract, tootime consuming to mentor honors students. I agree thatfashioning a legimate honors contract is challengingand requires much effort, careful thought, and ameasure of creativity. Mentoring honors studentscertainly requires a commitment of time and accessibil-ity. But the pay-off, for both teacher and student, canbe splendid.

As you can see, my own experience as an honorsstudent has transformed me from a supporter to anadvocate. Because I�ve been there, done that, I�mconvinced the honors contract is one of the mostvaluable devices we have at our disposal for respond-ing to those students who seek something extra, andthat the contract offers the opportunity for a stimulatingand gratifying academic experience. As a result, I�mrethinking and redesigning the honors contracts Icurrently offer. I�m also considering developing honorscontracts for additional courses. I plan to be moreaggressive in promoting the viability and benefits ofthese contracts. And I hope my colleagues will do thesame.

And as a continuing student? I can�t wait to do itagain.

�As you can see, my own experience as anhonors student has transformed me from a

supporter to an advocate.�


For conference registration information,contact the NCHC headquarters

at (540) 831-6100 or [email protected].

You can also access the information at the2002 conference website at

www.radford.edu/~nchc/2002_NCHC_Conference_Website.htm.

The 2002 NCHCAnnual Conference will be held

at the Grand America Hotelin Salt Lake City, Utah

October 30-November 3.

Future NCHC Conferences:

November 5-9, 2003: Palmer House Hilton, Chicago, ILNovember 10-14, 2004: Hyatt Regency New Orleans, New Orleans, LA


What is the NCHC?

The National Collegiate Honors Council (NCHC) was established in 1966 as an organization of American collegesand universities, students, faculty, administrators, and those interested in supporting honors education.

Historically, the honors movement has been a catalyst for positive change in American higher education. Many ofits innovations (undergraduate research, study abroad, experiential learning) have become standard features ofmainstream post-secondary curriculum.

NCHC members, both individually and together, continue to respond to the special needs of exceptionally talentedand motivated students through a wide variety of programs and activities.

*NCHC encourages the creation of and renewal of honors programs by offerings popular annual workshops:Beginning in Honors, Developing in Honors, and Students in Honors.

*NCHC supports existing honors programs with a full slate of national, regional, and statewide conferences,forums, and workshops.

*NCHC promotes a better understanding of current issues and developments in honors education through its twopublications, Journal of the NCHC, a scholarly journal, and The National Honors Report, a professional quarterly.

*NCHC creates new learning opportunities for students: theme-based Honors Semesters, in places like Appalachia,the Grand Canyon, and Greece; and Sleeping Bag Seminars when students from several institutions get together fora weekend of theme-based learning and socializing.

*NCHC sponsors a wide range of committees and programs that support specific constituencies, such as LargeUniversities, Small Colleges, Science & Math, Two-Year Schools, as well as committees and programs that addressspecific concerns of honors education, such as Teaching & Learning, Evaluation, and Research.

*NCHC provides grants through its endowed Portz funds to support undergraduate research and to support innova-tions in honors programs.

NCHC Publications

Beginning in Honors: A Handbook (3rd ed., 1995) by Samuel Schuman. The nuts & bolts of honors: budgets,recruitment, administrative concerns, curriculum design, model programs & more. For new administrators.

Evaluating Honors Programs: an Outcomes Approach (1990) by Jacqueline Reihman, Sara Varhus, andWilliam R. Whipple. The how�s of evaluating.

A Handbook for Honors Administrators by Ada Long (1995). Everything & more. Includes descriptions of modelsof honors administrators.

Honors Programs: Development, Review, and Revitalization (1991) by C. Grey Austin. A useful guide useful inevery stage of an honors program.

Honors Programs at Smaller Colleges (1999, 2nd ed.) by Samuel Schuman. For colleges with fewer than 3000students.

Place as Text: Approaches to Active Learning (2000) by Bernice Braid and Ada Long. Information and practicaladvice on the experiential pedagogies developed within the NCHC during the past 25 years.

Teaching and Learning in Honors (2000) by Cheryl Fuiks and Larry Clark. Presents a variety of perspectives onteaching and learning.

National Collegiate Honors CouncilPO Box 7017Radford UniversityRadford, VA 24142-7017

NON-PRNON-PRNON-PRNON-PRNON-PROFITOFITOFITOFITOFITORORORORORGGGGG.....

U.S. POSTAGEPPPPPAIDAIDAIDAIDAID

Radford Univ.

the national honors - tennessee tech -:|:- … national honors report issn 1953-3621 '2002...

Documents