Strategic Framework Task Forces

The strategic planning process began in 2014 and took place at multiple levels, involving trustees and many members of the University community. Existing board committees and the campus task forces listed below examined key questions throughout the strategic planning process.

Charge

Alumni devotion, engagement, and support have long been among Princeton's greatest assets and defining characteristics. As the University thinks strategically about its future, it is important to assess the state of alumni engagement and to ask whether there are steps that should be taken not only to sustain this engagement, but to expand and enhance it.

The most recent thorough review of the University's relationships with its alumni was conducted in 2002 by the Trustee Committee on Alumni Affairs and the Executive Committee of the Alumni Council. The two committees issued a joint statement that proposed a variety of measures to sustain strong, lifelong, and mutually beneficial relationships between the University and its alumni. This self-study should assess progress made over these past dozen years and new needs and opportunities that may have arisen, addressing, among others, the following questions:

• What steps are being taken, and what additional steps can and should be taken, to ensure continued and even greater engagement by alumni of all backgrounds as participants and as leaders in alumni programs and in the life of the University?
• How effective are existing programs of outreach and communications in informing and engaging alumni and how can they be improved?
• What improvements, if any, should be considered to enhance such signature programs as Reunions and Alumni Day, and are there other “signature” programs that should be considered?
• What additional staffing and financial resources would be required to achieve an expanded and enhanced alumni relations program and are there existing staff positions or financial resources that could be reallocated to areas of higher priority?

Members

This self-study will be conducted by the Alumni Affairs office in consultation with the Executive Committee of the Alumni Council.

Reports

• Alumni Affairs Self-Study Final Report (.pdf)
• Alumni Affairs at Princeton: A Statement by President Christopher L. Eisgruber, '83 (.pdf)

Charge

Higher education faces a wide array of new opportunities and challenges related to the recent emergence of MOOCs (Massive Open Online Courses) and other forms of online instruction. Online technology might make teaching more interactive and widely available, or it might dilute quality and shortchange students. Princeton must consider carefully how it should respond to this rapidly changing landscape. Princeton's mission requires that it think not only about how online technology should affect teaching on its own campus, but also about whether and how this University might, by example or through its research, play a leadership role in shaping the impact of online technology on higher education. We would accordingly ask that, as part of the University's larger strategic planning process, the Council on Teaching and Learning prepare a report that recommends strategic priorities and specific measures for guiding Princeton's ongoing approach to online instruction.

The overarching questions in this area include how Princeton should take advantage of new developments in online learning and technology in the classroom to enhance the quality of education on our campus, whether and how Princeton should use MOOCs or other technology to expand the reach of its teaching, and whether and how Princeton can contribute to research about the efficacy and value of online teaching. In formulating your response, we ask the council to investigate (but not be limited to) the following questions:

1. What goals should guide Princeton's overall strategy with regard to the evolution of online education? Should it attempt to pioneer new techniques; to research the efficacy of online pedagogies; to be a consumer (rather than a producer) of pedagogies that are useful to its students; or to play some other role? Where can and should Princeton have the greatest impact?
2. How should we regard the pedagogical value of online technology to instruction at Princeton? What have been the pedagogical success stories at peer institutions and elsewhere? Where have there been failures? How should these successes and failures inform our strategy and approach to online instruction both in Princeton courses and MOOCs created by our faculty? In addressing this question, the council may wish to consider questions such as:
   1. Can online technology allow us to be more efficient (e.g., by serving more students with fewer staff) without compromising the quality of education?
   2. Can online technology enhance the quality of courses at Princeton (e.g., by enabling us to offer more in-depth faculty-student interaction, or to offer a greater variety of courses)?
   3. Can online technology improve the educational experience of students whose commitments or interests (e.g., civic engagement, study abroad, athletics, etc.) raise scheduling or course-planning issues?
   4. Can online technology be used to improve the quality or availability of academic support services or provide supplemental instruction that better serves the needs of an increasingly diverse student body?
3. What are the benefits and costs associated with the public dissemination of Princeton's instructional materials? Should Princeton actively promote wider distribution of such materials and, if so, how? More particularly:
   1. Should Princeton actively encourage faculty members to develop online offerings (including but not limited to MOOCs)?  If so — recognizing that time invested in developing online course materials takes time away from other activities — how should we do so?
   2. Are there specific University rules or policies that create barriers to the creation or effective use of online materials? If so, can these barriers be mitigated without defeating the purposes of those rules or policies?
   3. Given that the development of online instructional materials involves costs in terms of time, money and space, what principles should guide whether such investments are worth the cost?  
4. Are there collaborative opportunities or partnerships that Princeton might pursue with other institutions?
5. To what extent is Princeton providing sufficient support for the development of online teaching on its campus? If not, what additional support is most needed? Would it be possible to reallocate existing resources or programs to provide such support?

The consideration of the above questions should be informed not only by what we are seeing here at Princeton but also by what is known about how online learning tools and methods are utilized at peer institutions.

This charge does not raise again the important questions about intellectual property addressed in the report of the ad hoc faculty committee on online courses (the Rosen Committee). However, the Council is encouraged to consider and build upon — and, if necessary, suggest modifications to — that report as appropriate in formulating its strategic recommendations. (The report has not yet been adopted by the faculty, but it is anticipated that the Rosen Committee's recommendations, or portions of them, will come before the faculty this year.)

We look forward to keeping in touch with you about your thinking and work in this emerging aspect of higher education. We realize that this is a time-consuming task, and are grateful for your efforts.

Members

This study will be conducted by the Faculty Council on Teaching and Learning.

Chair

• Harvey Rosen, John L. Weinberg Professor of Economics and Business Policy

Faculty members

• Wendy Belcher, Associate Professor of Comparative Literature and African American Studies.
• Edward Felten, Robert E. Kahn Professor of Computer Science and Public Affairs; Professor of Computer Science and Public Affairs; Director, Center of Information Technology Policy; Associate Director, Program in Technology and Society.
• Carol Greenhouse, Arthur W. Marks '19 Professor of Anthropology; Chair, Department of Anthropology
• Fred Hughson, Professor of Molecular Biology
• Adam Maloof, Associate Professor of Geosciences
• Simone Marchesi, Associate Professor of French and Italian
• Rodney Priestley, Assistant Professor of Chemical and Biological Engineering

Staff members

• Cole Crittenden, Associate Dean for Academic Affairs, Office of the Dean of the Graduate School
• Lisa Herschbach, Director of the McGraw Center for Teaching and Learning, Associate Dean of the College
• Jeff Himpele, Director of Teaching Initiatives and Programs, McGraw Center for Teaching and Learning

Reports

• Strategic Review of Online Education (.pdf)
• Online Education: A statement by President Christopher L. Eisgruber and Provost David S. Lee (.pdf)

Charge

To make recommendations that will guide Princeton's response to changing patterns of support for sponsored research, with the overall goal of ensuring that Princeton continues to be one of the world's great research universities. In making its recommendations, the committee will take into account Princeton's distinctive characteristics, including the central importance of undergraduate education and Princeton's small size.

Members

Co-Chairs

• Pablo Debenedetti, Dean for Research; Class of 1950 Professor in Engineering and Applied Science; Professor of Chemical and Biological Engineering
• David Lee, Provost; Professor of Economics and Public Affairs, Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs

Faculty members

• Bonnie Bassler, Squibb Professor in Molecular Biology; Chair, Department of Molecular Biology
• Christodoulos Floudas, Stephen C. Macaleer '63 Professor in Engineering and Applied Science; Professor of Chemical and Biological Engineering
• Claire Gmachl, Eugene Higgins Professor of Electrical Engineering; Vice Dean, School of Engineering and Applied Science
• Hantao Ji, Professor of Astrophysical Sciences
• Sanjeev Kulkarni, Dean of the Graduate School; Professor of Electrical Engineering
• C.K. (Ed) Law, Robert H. Goddard Professor of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering
• Meredith Martin, Associate Professor of English; Director, Digital Humanities Center
• Eldar Shafir, William Stewart Tod Professor of Psychology and Public Affairs
• Daniel Sigman, Dusenbury Professor of Geological and Geophysical Sciences; Professor of Geosciences
• David Spergel, Charles A. Young Professor of Astronomy on the Class of 1897 Foundation; Professor of Astrophysical Sciences; Chair, Department of Astrophysical Science

Sits with committee

• Karla Ewalt, Associate Dean for Research, Office of the Dean for Research
• Steven Gill, Budget Director and Associate Provost for Finance, Office of the Vice President for Finance and Treasurer
• Jed Marsh, Vice Provost for Institutional Research, Office of the Provost

Secretary

• Annette Tate, Department Manager, Office of the Dean for Research

Reports

• Report of the Committee on the Future of Sponsored Research (.pdf)
• Sponsored Research at Princeton University: A statement by President Christopher L. Eisgruber (.pdf)

Charge

In January 2012, then-President Shirley M. Tilghman appointed Michael Jennings, Class of 1900 Professor of Modern Languages in the Department of German, and Clayton Marsh, Deputy Dean of the College, to serve as co-chairs of the steering committee for Princeton's decennial accreditation before the Middle States Commission on Higher Education. In consultation with the co-chairs, the president selected Princeton's international initiatives as the special topic of the self-study (for the accreditation process) and appointed a steering committee consisting of 10 administrators and faculty members, a committee that would bring appropriate experience and expertise to this process.

The working groups that focused on Princeton's international initiatives considered six areas:

1. mission and goals;
2. organizational structure;
3. international studies at Princeton;
4. study abroad and other significant international experiences;
5. strategic partnerships; and
6. administrative support.

In preparing this special topic report, the steering committee and its working groups collected information, data and perspectives from a variety of sources: survey results from students, faculty and alumni; extensive interviews with faculty members, administrators and students; research on structures, programs and best practices at North American universities; and a two-day visit to a peer institution.

Members

Mission and Goals

• Michael Jennings, Class of 1900 Professor of Modern Languages; Professor of German
• Clayton Marsh, Deputy Dean of the College, Office of the Dean of the College
• Miguel Centeno, Musgrave Professor of Sociology; Professor of Sociology and International Affairs; Chair, Department of Sociology
• Carol Greenhouse, Arthur W. Marks '19 Professor of Anthropology; Chair, Department of Anthropology
• Joshua Katz, Professor of Classics

International Studies at Princeton

• Mark Beissinger, Henry W. Putnam Professor of Politics; Director, Princeton Institute for International and Regional Studies
• Jeff Dolven, Associate Professor of English
• João Biehl, Susan Dod Brown Professor of Anthropology
• Patrick Caddeau, Forbes College Director of Studies

Study Abroad and Other Significant International Experiences

• Diana Davies, Vice Provost for International Initiatives, Office of the Provost
• Deborah Yashar, Professor of Politics and International Affairs
• Edward Freeland, Associate Director of the Survey Research Center, Woodrow Wilson School
• Sheldon Garon, Nissan Professor in Japanese Studies; Professor of History and East Asian Studies
• Anne Caswell Klein, Dean of Wilson College

Strategic Partnerships

• Philip Nord, Rosengarten Professor of Modern and Contemporary History; Director, Shelby Cullom Davis Center for Historical Studies

Administrative Support

• Nancy Kanach, Senior Associate Dean of the College, Office of the Dean of the College

Reports

• Princeton University Decennial Accreditation Report, Special Topic: International Initiatives (.pdf)

Charge

from Provost David Lee

Princeton's faculty, students, staff and alumni are increasingly interested in exploring Princeton's emerging role in the area of entrepreneurship. This theme arose during President Eisgruber's listening tour on campus last spring and has intensified in the intervening months.

The number of entrepreneurship-related activities, curricular or otherwise, being offered on the Princeton campus has grown considerably in recent years. These activities range from undergraduate and graduate course offerings such as "Entrepreneurial Leadership," "Social Entrepreneurship: Ventures to Address Global Challenges," and "High-Tech Entrepreneurship"; to internships coordinated through the Keller Center for Innovation in Engineering Education, the Pace Center, the International Internship Program, and Career Services; to a Summer Accelerator Program; to broad student-led programing coordinated through groups such as the Entrepreneurship Club and the Social Entrepreneurship Initiative. Enrollment and participation rates have closely paralleled the growth of such offerings.

This is an opportune moment to develop a broad, holistic vision for what entrepreneurship "the Princeton Way" could look like on campus. Such a vision will necessarily be rooted in Princeton's strengths as a liberal arts institution and as a leading research university, and should amplify University's core missions of teaching and research.

I have assembled this committee of faculty, students, staff and alumni to develop a set of recommendations for what actions the University can take to create an entrepreneurship "identity" at Princeton, and an environment that offers students and faculty the fullest opportunity to explore and pursue entrepreneurial paths. I would like to call on the expertise of this committee to develop a recommended action plan, in the short, medium and long run. The hope would be that the plan would comprise implementable proposals that include specifics for each action: its rationale, how it links to the broader goals of an entrepreneurship vision, who will execute it, an estimated budget and thoughts on funding models.

Since you will be keeping Princeton University's core mission of research and teaching in mind, I anticipate there will be points at which the goals of the initiative in some respects might run counter to the pursuit of our core mission as a university. I would ask the committee to consider the following questions:

1. How do we provide an encouraging and supportive environment for entrepreneurial activity, but at the same time ensure the engagement of our students and faculty in their respective academic programs?
2. Related to the first question, what are the ways in which supporting entrepreneurship can complement and enhance our ability to be a world-class research institution and provide a world-class education broadly defined to our graduate and undergraduate students?
3. How can we best consolidate and enhance the many entrepreneurial opportunities that already exist on campus, so that the whole is better than the sum of the parts?
4. What are the range of possible initiatives and activities that are available — including those that worked or did not work at our peer institutions? What should be the highest priorities to pursue given Princeton's distinctive characteristics? What directions should we avoid and why?
5. What would be the best long-term structure of governance for our various entrepreneurial activities?

Members

Chair

• Mung Chiang, Arthur LeGrand Doty Professor of Electrical Engineering; Director, Keller Center for Innovation in Engineering Education; Director, Program in Technology and Society

Faculty members

• Sanjeev Kulkarni, Dean of the Graduate School; Professor of Electrical Engineering
• Melissa Lane, Class of 1943 Professor of Politics
• Kai Li, Paul M. Wythes '55 P86 and Marcia R. Wythes P86 Professor in Computer Science
• Lynn Loo, Theodora D. '78 and William H. Walton III '74 Professor in Engineering; Professor of Chemical and Biological Engineering; Associate Director for External Partnerships, Andlinger Center for Energy and Environment
• David MacMillan, James S. McDonnell Distinguished University Professor of Chemistry; Chair, Department of Chemistry
• Adel Mahmoud, Lecturer with the Rank of Professor in Molecular Biology and Public Policy, Woodrow Wilson School
• Jennifer Rexford, Gordon Y.S. Wu Professor in Engineering; Professor of Computer Science

Alumni members

• Lynda Clarizio '82, President, Nielsen US Media
• John Diekman '65, Founder and Managing Partner of 5AM Ventures
• Christopher Kuenne '85, Founder and CEO, Rosemark Capital Group; Lecturer, High Tech Entrepreneurship
• Gordon Ritter '86, Founder and General Partner of Emergence Capital Partners
• Peter Wendell '72, Managing Director, Sierra Ventures

Student members

• Catherine Dennig '15, Co-president of Social Entrepreneurship Initiative, 2013-14
• Eric First, Ph.D. candidate, Department of Chemical and Biological Engineering
• Stephanie He '15, President of Entrepreneurship Club, 2014-15
• Vivian Qu '14, Co-president of Entrepreneurship Club, 2013-14

Staff members

• Pascale Poussart, Director of Undergraduate Research, Office of the Dean of the College; PEAC Secretary
• John Ritter, Director, Office of Technology Licensing and Intellectual Property
• Kimberly de los Santos, John C. Bogle '51 and Burton G. Malkiel *64 Director of the Pace Center for Civic Engagement

Reports

• Entrepreneurship the Princeton Way (.pdf)
• President Christopher L. Eisgruber and Provost David S. Lee's response to the entrepreneurship report (.pdf)

Charge

from President Christopher L. Eisgruber

In nearly every domain of human activity, people today confront problems that transcend international boundaries. The demand for knowledge to address these problems is growing — and it will continue to do so. Students, policymakers, and leaders in all sectors of our society increasingly recognize a need for knowledge about societies and cultures different from our own. In support of the University’s teaching and research mission and its informal motto — “In the nation’s service and in the service of all nations” — Princeton University must build strength in the study of contemporary cultures, economies, political institutions and societies throughout the world.  

Princeton starts from a strong foundation. The University has a distinguished history of research and teaching about contemporary societies throughout the world. Enhancing Princeton’s capacity in these fields will, however, require careful planning and thoughtful choices about how to support scholars and train students who seek to combine disciplinary excellence with a deep understanding of local detail. 

I am accordingly asking this task force to assess the University’s strengths and challenges in contemporary regional studies, and to comment on how best the University can support current fields and seize emerging opportunities. More specifically, I would like the committee to answer the following questions:

1. What are Princeton’s current strengths and weaknesses in fields related to regional studies? What new challenges and opportunities will it face in the next decade? 
2. How do Princeton’s efforts in regional studies compare to those at peer institutions? What lessons should Princeton draw from the experience of those institutions?
3. What are Princeton’s highest priority needs in the field of regional studies? Should Princeton focus its energies on particular regions of the world, and, if so, which ones (or how should Princeton select these areas)? Could Princeton redeploy existing resources in regional studies to launch new initiatives or support existing ones more effectively?
4. Would Princeton benefit from exploring new appointment strategies to augment its teaching strength in regional studies? For example, to what extent should Princeton create more opportunities for long-term visitors or distinguished practitioners to serve on its faculty?
5. How can Princeton do more to increase the integration and impact of its various efforts in regional studies? What role should the Princeton Institute for International and Regional Studies (PIIRS) play in the future of regional studies at Princeton, and what relationship should it have to the University’s regional studies programs?
6. To what extent should Princeton increase its cross-disciplinary undergraduate programming in regional studies and related fields? Should it, for example, offer an international studies major or certificate?  
7. How best can Princeton support doctoral and other graduate programs in regional studies? For example, should it either create a cross-departmental allocation of graduate slots, or an interdisciplinary graduate certificate, or both?
8. What kinds of foreign language training and support must Princeton provide in order to support a world-class program in regional studies?
9. How should Princeton define and evaluate the success of its programs, including any new investments that it might make, in regional studies?

Members

Chair

• Mark Beissinger, Henry W. Putnam Professor of Politics; Director, Princeton Institute for International and Regional Studies

Faculty members

• Anne Case, Alexander Stewart 1886 Professor of Economics and Public Affairs
• Stephen Kotkin, John P. Birkelund '52 Professor in History and International Affairs; Acting Director, Program in Russian, East European, and Eurasian Studies
• David Leheny, Henry Wendt III '55 Professor of East Asian Studies; Acting Chair, Department of East Asian Studies
• Douglas Massey, Henry G. Bryant Professor of Sociology and Public Affairs, Woodrow Wilson School; Director, Office of Population Research; Director, Program in Population Studies; Director, Program in Urban Studies
• Helen Milner, B.C. Forbes Professor of Public Affairs; Professor of Politics and International Affairs, Woodrow Wilson School; Director, Center for Globalization and Governance
• Jamie Rankin, Senior Lecturer in German; Director, Princeton's Center for Language Study
• Carolyn Rouse, Professor of Anthropology

Staff members

• Mark Dingfield, Director of Finance Administration and Transformation Program, Finance Administration, Office of the Vice President for Finance and Treasurer

Reports

• Report of the Task Force on Regional Studies (.pdf)
• Regional Studies at Princeton University: A statement by President Christopher L. Eisgruber and Provost David S. Lee (.pdf)

Charge

Recent advances in information technology, computer science, energy and the environment, and entrepreneurship have made engineering schools pivotal to the success of major research universities. At Princeton, these trends are evident in the rising prominence of the School of Engineering and Applied Science, both within the University and beyond. Today, there is skyrocketing interest in and demand for engineering courses among undergraduates from all disciplines, and the school's alumni and faculty are recognized leaders and influencers throughout the public and private sectors, including academia, industry, government and service-oriented nonprofits.

Though the E-Quad may be located at one edge of our campus, the School of Engineering and Applied Science has become central to the University's teaching and research mission. This importance will only deepen in the years that lie ahead, and the strategic planning process presents a prime opportunity to explore and answer the following broad question: How can the University recognize and build upon the essential importance of engineering and computer science to a 21st-century liberal arts university?
 
—President Christopher L. Eisgruber

The School of Engineering and Applied Science Strategic Planning Task Force is asked to begin by conducting a self-study and external review. It is expected that this self-study will mirror the well-established process for departmental self-studies, including internal examination of the school's strengths, weaknesses, internal structures, academic programs and facilities. Additionally, the task force is asked to identify current and future challenges as well as potential opportunities. An external review committee will then be invited to comment on the internal examination and make further recommendations.

In the course of its work, the task force is asked to consider the following questions:

• Which academic fields or educational programs are of highest priority for significant new investment now and in the future? Are there areas where we should scale back to allow us to dedicate resources more fully to the most relevant and critical issues of today and the future?
• How best can the School of Engineering and Applied Science leverage and enhance collaboration among departments and disciplines, both within the school and across the University? How can the School of Engineering and Applied Science's facilities and its physical connection with the rest of campus most effectively form bridges among engineering, the natural and social sciences, and the humanities?
• To what extent and how should questions about the school's physical compactness and proximity to other disciplines inform that campus planning process that will guide the campus' physical development for the next 10 years and beyond?
• How should the school's academic departments be structured to best accomplish our teaching and research goals?
• How best can the School of Engineering and Applied Science contribute to and enhance the University's culture of service by helping students use their educations for the common good? How can the school help prepare leaders and engaged citizens who will make significant contributions in our technology-driven society?

Members

Chair

• Jeremy Kasdin, Vice Dean, School of Engineering and Applied Science; Professor of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering

Faculty members

• Claire Gmachl, Eugene Higgins Professor of Electrical Engineering
• Peter Jaffe, Professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering; Associate Director for Research, Andlinger Center for Energy and the Environment
• Jennifer Rexford, Gordon Y.S. Wu Professor in Engineering. Professor of Computer Science
• Clarence Rowley, Professor of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering
• Sankaran Sundaresan, Professor of Chemical and Biological Engineering
• Robert Vanderbei, Professor of Operations Research and Financial Engineering

Ex officio

• Emily Carter, Director, Andlinger Center for Energy and the Environment; Gerhard R. Andlinger Professor in Energy and the Environment
• Mung Chiang, Director, Keller Center for Innovation in Engineering Education; Arthur LeGrand Doty Professor of Electrical Engineering
• Ed Felten, Director, Center of Information Technology Policy; Robert E. Kahn Professor of Computer Science and Public Affairs
• James Sturm, Director, Princeton Institute for the Science and Technology of Materials; Stephen R. Forrest Professor in Electrical Engineering

Staff members

• Amy Lewis, Director, Administration and Services, School of Engineering and Applied Science (secretary)

Reports

• Report of the School of Engineering and Applied Science Strategic Planning Task Force (.pdf)
• Engineering and Applied Science at Princeton University: A statement by President Christopher L. Eisgruber and Provost David S. Lee (.pdf)

Charge

The University has a longstanding commitment to service, and many Princetonians live the motto both during and after their time on campus. A new chapter in the University's service history began in 2001 with the founding of the Pace Center for Civic Engagement, and the establishment of initiatives such as the Bridge Year Program and Breakout trips has provided new opportunities for students to serve the common good. The desire to broaden, emphasize and enhance the University's public service commitment is expressed by one of the four key questions that the Trustees of Princeton University and President Christopher L. Eisgruber have asked to guide the University-wide strategic planning process:

"What must we do to make service central to the mission of Princeton University?"

To answer this question, and its important subsidiaries, this task force is charged with conducting a self-study of service and civic engagement opportunities for students at the University. It is expected that the committee's work will include an analysis of the service and civic engagement initiatives that the University currently supports for students; an exploration of national and international trends, including benchmarking with peer institutions; and the identification of challenges and opportunities to make service central to the University's mission. While the primary focus of the task force will be on non-curricular programs, initiatives, challenges and opportunities, the task force is also asked to explore the extent to which and how our departments, centers and programs provide opportunities for student civic engagement and in what ways such opportunities might connect to the academic programs of those units. 

Informed by its self-study findings, the task force is asked to develop a set of recommendations for how the University can create an environment that will make service and civic engagement central to the Princeton student experience. In particular, the task force is asked to consider the following questions:

• How best can Princeton cultivate an ethic of civic engagement among its students, both during their time here and after they graduate?
• Can we make existing service and civic engagement initiatives better and more visible? What new initiatives should we add?
• How can we best support learning and growth outside of the classroom by providing students with meaningful opportunities to serve and lead others as engaged citizens and developing leaders?
• To what extent and how should our departments, centers and programs provide opportunities for student civic engagement? In what ways might such opportunities connect to the academic programs of those units?
• How can we do a better job of helping students translate their education into meaningful lives and careers connected to a larger purpose?
• How can we help students develop into citizens and leaders who will contribute to the greater good?

The task force is asked to issue an interim progress report in January 2015 and a final report in June 2015.

Members

Co-Chairs

• Melissa Lane, Class of 1943 Professor of Politics; Associate Chair, Department of Politics
• Kimberly de los Santos, John C. Bogle '51 and Burton G. Malkiel *64 Director, Pace Center for Civic Engagement

Faculty members

• Sandra Bermann, Cotsen Professor of the Humanities; Professor of Comparative Literature; Master, Whitman College
• João Biehl, Susan Dod Brown Professor of Anthropology; Co-Director, Program in Global Health and Health Policy
• Emily Carter, Gerhard R. Andlinger Professor in Energy and the Environment; Professor of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering and Applied and Computational Mathematics; Director, Andlinger Center for Energy and the Environment; Associate Director, Program in Technology and Society
• Benjamin Morison, Professor of Philosophy; Director, Program in Classical Philosophy

Staff members

• Kristin Appelget, Director of Community and Regional Affairs (secretary)
• Pulin Sanghvi, Executive Director of Career Services 
• Trisha Thorme, Director of the Community-Based Learning Initiative                

Student members

• Laura Harder, Class of 2015
• Kelly LaRue, Graduate Student
• Dallas Nan, Class of 2016

Reports

• Service and Civic Engagement Self-Study Task Force Final Report, June 2015 (.pdf)
• Service and Civic Engagement at Princeton: Response by President Christopher L. Eisgruber, Dean of the Faculty Deborah Prentice and Executive Vice President Treby Williams (.pdf)

Charge

from President Christopher L. Eisgruber

The Program in American Studies at Princeton can trace its existence back to 1942, when President Harold Dodds announced the establishment of a new, self-consciously interdisciplinary "field of study in the American heritage" (it was initially called "the special program in American Civilization") (Princeton Alumni Weekly 5 (January 30, 1942)). Today, as the Program approaches its 75^th anniversary, its scholars and students pursue urgent questions about American society and culture, about America's relation to the world, and about the nature and limits of American values and aspirations. The program has become one of the University's principal sites for exploration of questions about race and ethnicity, and it serves as a home for important courses in Asian-American Studies, American Indian Studies, and American Jewish Studies. It is also an important partner to the Program in Latino Studies, the Program in Gender and Sexuality Studies, and the Department of African-American Studies.

As America has become both more diverse and also more self-conscious about its diversity, and as its relationship to other cultures and nations has become increasingly complex and contested, the quest to understand American society and culture has become at once more challenging and more critical to the nation's future. Because Princeton has outstanding faculty members across multiple departments and divisions who are leaders in the field, the University has a chance to grow American Studies in ways that will shed new light on important issues and shape intellectual debates throughout the field. Members of the faculty have brought forward proposals that suggest exciting possibilities for the program's future.

I am accordingly asking this task force to consider those proposals and, more generally, to comment on how best the University can respond to opportunities and challenges in the field of American Studies:

1. Given that the field is growing rapidly in multiple directions, how should Princeton conceive of American Studies and the mandate of its program in that field?
2. As we build toward the future, what are the current intellectual and programmatic strengths and weaknesses of Princeton's Program in American Studies? How does the work of Princeton's Program compare to how other institutions formulate the focus of their research and teaching in the field?
3. How should Princeton understand the relationship between the fields of American Studies and of race and ethnicity studies?
4. What relationship should American Studies have to current or potential certificate programs in fields such as Asian-American Studies, American Indian Studies, Latino Studies, and Gender and Sexuality Studies?
5. How should the Program in American Studies be structured in order to carry out its mission and meet the demand for its teaching?
6. How should the University evaluate the success of any new investments that it might make in American Studies?

Members

Chair

• Anne Cheng, Professor of English and African American Studies; Director, Program in American Studies
• Dirk Hartog, Class of 1921 Bicentennial Professor in the History of American Law and Liberty; Professor of History

Faculty members

• Margot Canaday, Associate Professor of History
• Rachael DeLue, Associate Professor of Art and Archaeology
• Paul Frymer, Professor of Politics; Director, Program in Law and Public Affairs
• Brian Herrera, Assistant Professor of Theater in the Lewis Center for the Arts; Robert Remsen  Laidlaw '04 University Preceptor in the Humanities
• Aly Kassam-Remtulla, Assistant Provost, Office of the Provost, (ex-officio)
• Kinohi Nishikawa, Assistant Professor of English and the Center for African American Studies
• Carolyn Rouse, Professor of Anthropology; Director, Program in African Studies
• Judith Weisenfeld, Agate Brown and George L. Collord Professor of Religion

Staff members

•  David Stirk, Dean, Butler College, Residential Colleges

Reports

• Report of the Task Force on American Studies (.pdf)
• American Studies at Princeton University: A statement by President Christopher L. Eisgruber and Dean of the College Jill S. Dolan (.pdf)

Charge

The undergraduate curriculum at Princeton is organized around four pillars: the general education course requirements (Gen Ed); electives that allow students to freely explore course offerings; courses taken in the departmental concentration (or major); and independent work in the junior and senior years. These pillars serve distinct yet interconnected purposes: the Gen Ed requirements are intended to "transcend the boundaries of specialization and provide all students with a common language and common skills" (Undergraduate Announcement); electives enable students to experiment freely across the disciplines; coursework in the concentration immerses students in the knowledge, methods and practices of a specific discipline; and independent work provides students with the opportunity to conduct original research or to produce a creative work or a project in their chosen field of study under the guidance of a faculty member.

Princeton periodically reviews its policies and curriculum to ensure that they continue to support our mission and respond to changes in the landscape of higher education. Twenty years ago, the Office of the Dean of the College oversaw a review of the general education requirements that resulted in a shift from "definition by discipline" to "definition by ways of looking at and interpreting the world" ("Undergraduate Education Report," 1994). Since then, incremental revisions to these requirements were introduced, most notably, the modifications of the writing and science and technology requirements in 2001 and 2010, respectively. At present, in addition to the writing and foreign language requirements, students are required to take courses in the following areas: epistemology and cognition; ethical thought and moral values; historical analysis; literature and the arts; social analysis; quantitative reasoning; and science and technology. As part of the University-wide strategic planning process, the Task Force on General Education is charged with conducting a self-study to review our goals for an undergraduate education to ensure that our requirements achieve those objectives. 

Process

A committee of faculty members and administrators should undertake a review of the curriculum, focusing particularly, although not exclusively, on the Gen Ed requirements. In conducting its work, this committee should consult a variety of sources, such as colleagues in academic departments, benchmarking data from peer institutions, surveys of students and faculty members, focus groups of students and faculty, and secondary literature on developments in general education. Members of this committee should consult periodically and coordinate their work with members of both the Committee on the Course of Study and the Council on Teaching and Learning.

This committee should address the following general questions and recommend reforms consistent with its answers to them:

• What do we want Princeton students to gain from their undergraduate education? What are the fundamental skills, abilities and perspectives that every Princeton student should develop during the course of this education? 
• What purposes should Gen Ed requirements serve? Do the current distribution areas appropriately reflect the objectives of a Princeton education? 
• How do Princeton's Gen Ed requirements compare to those at peer institutions? What might we learn from their recent curricular reviews?
• To what extent, and how, should Princeton's general education curriculum require students to attain familiarity with foreign cultures or an international perspective? Does the University's current foreign language requirement appropriately support the goals of Princeton's general education curriculum, and how, if at all, should it be modified? 
• How should issues of diversity and culture be integrated into the general education curriculum at Princeton?   Should we include a “diversity requirement,” as the Special Task Force on Diversity, Equity and Inclusion urged in their May 2015 report?
• Given the pervasive importance of computers and computer programming in the modern world, should our general education curriculum incorporate a computer science requirement?
• Do Princeton's course offerings provide students with appropriate opportunities and incentives to achieve the goals of our distribution requirements? Would it be possible to improve the match between our course offerings and those goals? For example, should we offer more large foundational courses and fewer specialized seminars in each category in order to increase the likelihood that students would share a common intellectual experience? Should we alter our advising practices to ensure that students acquire greater breadth and depth in their course of study? Should we modify the processes by which courses that fulfill certain Gen Ed requirements are reviewed and approved?

• How might Gen Ed requirements better prepare students for the process of choosing a concentration and completing independent work? Specifically, should they be used to introduce freshmen to various ways of knowing and to provide sophomores with a more coherent and focused academic experience? If so, when should students be encouraged or required to take the majority of their Gen Ed courses? 
• What percentage of students' required coursework should be devoted to the fulfillment of the Gen Ed requirements? Do we allow students adequate opportunities for reflection and intellectual risk? 
• What are the implications (if any) of our responses to these questions for the academic calendar?

Members

Chair

• Jill Dolan, Dean of the College; Annan Professor in English

Faculty members

• Christina Davis, Professor of Politics and International Affairs
• Elizabeth Gavis, Professor of Molecular Biology.
• Claire Gmachl, Eugene Higgins Professor of Electrical Engineering
• Andrea LaPaugh, Professor of Computer Science
• Pedro Meira Monteiro, Professor of Spanish and Portuguese Languages and Cultures; Acting Director, Program in Latin American Studies
• Michael Smith, McCosh Professor of Philosophy; Chair, Department of Philosophy
• Michael Strauss, Professor of Astrophysical Sciences; Associate Chair, Department of Astrophysical Sciences; Acting Chair, Department of Astrophysical Sciences
• Mark Watson, Howard Harrison and Gabrielle Snyder Beck Professor of Economics and Public Affairs, Woodrow Wilson School.

Staff members

• Anne Caswell-Klein, Dean of Wilson College
• Liz Colagiuri, Deputy Dean of the College, Office of the Dean of the College

Reports

• Report of the Task Force on General Education (.pdf)
• General Education at Princeton University: A statement by President Christopher L. Eisgruber and Dean of the Faculty Deborah Prentice 

Charge

Many of the 21^st century’s most important discoveries — in fields ranging from astrophysics to finance, and from neuroscience to public policy — will emerge from sophisticated and innovative analyses of massive data sets. The field of statistics and machine learning, which develops the theories and techniques that enable scholars to extract meaning from data, will catalyze research agendas across multiple disciplines and departments. Excellence in this evolving science of data will be essential to any university that aspires to produce world-class education and research.

Princeton University has a distinctive history in statistics and a unique opportunity for creative leadership. Princeton alumni and faculty members — including Alonzo Church '24 *27, Alan Turing *38, John Von Neumann and John Tukey *39 — pioneered mathematical and computational ideas that made possible the development of modern data science. Despite its historical strength in the field, Princeton eliminated its Department of Statistics in 1985. Today, Princeton has a vibrant collection of outstanding statisticians in multiple departments, and it has the freedom to design an interdisciplinary center that is unfettered by prior departmental structures and so can be tailored to seize the opportunities presented by new developments in the field.

To do so effectively, Princeton will have to plan carefully. It must aim for the highest levels of quality. It must develop a vibrant and cohesive community in statistics and machine learning while also nurturing the field’s connections to research and teaching throughout the University. It must ensure that students and faculty in the field have access to the infrastructure and data sets they need to do their work well. And the University must figure out whether it should concentrate its efforts on particular data sets or topics, and, if so, which ones.

Earlier this year, Princeton took an initial step forward in this critical field by launching its new Center for Statistics and Machine Learning. As Princeton prepares to increase the scope of the center’s activity, I would ask this task force to consider the following questions:

1. What are Princeton's current strengths and weaknesses in statistics and machine learning? How does Princeton’s position compare to that of other leading research universities?
2. What existing resources — including faculty positions, graduate student slots and facilities — are now supporting the University's efforts in statistics and machine learning, or can be repurposed to do so?
3. How should Princeton define the intellectual and scholarly core of its Center for Statistics and Machine Learning? To what extent must Princeton focus on specific kinds of data, or specific areas of research, in order to ensure that its center’s work achieves world-class eminence?
4. Which departments are the key partners for the Center for Statistics and Machine Learning? How should the University decide on the right mix of center-only faculty lines (if any) versus joint appointments?
5. What graduate and undergraduate curriculum should the center offer, and what degree programs should it support? What student constituencies should the center serve, and how it can do so effectively? What faculty resources would the center require to staff its teaching agenda?
6. What infrastructure — such as research staff, computational facilities and data sets — would the center require in order to achieve world-class eminence in its teaching and research?
7. How should the University evaluate the success of investments that it makes in the field of statistics and machine learning?

Members

Chair

• John Storey, William R. Harman '63 and Mary-Love Harman Professor in Genomics; Professor of Molecular Biology and the Lewis-Sigler Institute for Integrative Genomics;  Director, Center for Statistics and Machine Learning

Faculty members

• Jonathan Cohen, Robert Bendheim and Lynn Bendheim Thoman Professor in Neuroscience; Professor of Psychology and the Princeton Neuroscience Institute; Co-Director, Princeton Neuroscience Institute
• Jay Dominick, Vice President for Information Technology and Chief Information Officer
• Jianqing Fan, Frederick L. Moore, Class of 1918, Professor in Finance; Professor of Operations Research and Financial Engineering; Chair, Department of Operations Research and Financial Engineering; Director, Committee for Statistical Studies
• Kosuke Imai, Professor of Politics; Director, Program in Statistics and Machine Learning
• Matthew Salganik, Professor of Sociology
• Christopher Sims, John J. F. Sherrerd '52 University Professor of Economics
• James Stone, Professor of Astrophysical Sciences and Applied and Computational Mathematics; Director, Princeton Institute for Computational Science and Engineering; Director, Fund for Canadian Studies
• Olga Troyanskaya, Professor of Computer Science and the Lewis-Sigler Institute for Integrative Genomics

Staff members

• Kara Dolinski, Director, Genome Databases, Lewis-Sigler Institute for Integrative Genomics

Reports

• Report of the Task Force on Statistics and Machine Learning (.pdf)
• Statistics and Machine Learning at Princeton University: A statement by President Christopher L. Eisgruber and Dean of the Faculty Deborah Prentice (.pdf)

Charge

The Graduate School at Princeton is distinctive in several ways including its relatively small size, high level of engagement between distinguished faculty and outstanding students, emphasis on doctoral education together with a limited number of masters degree programs, a residential campus environment and surrounding area that fosters a community of scholars, and depth of financial support that allows concentration on academics. Compared with its peers, Princeton takes a fairly centralized approach to the administration of its graduate programs, but at the same time individual academic departments and programs are granted great flexibility in establishing discipline-specific degree requirements and guiding student research. Graduate education at Princeton has a strong tradition of excellence across the humanities, social sciences, sciences and engineering.

As part of the University-wide strategic planning process, the Task Force on the Future of the Graduate School is charged with conducting a self-study to identify strengths, weakness, challenges and opportunities, and then developing a suite of recommendations to sustain the excellence and further enhance the University's graduate programs.

To encourage robust and productive engagement around the future of the Graduate School, the committee is asked to consider fundamental questions about the University’s current graduate education model and to engage in creative thinking on several topics. In particular, the committee is asked to explore the following areas creatively: (1) the mission and goals of the Graduate School and its role and integration within Princeton University; (2) the best ways for Princeton to support that mission, including how best to provide students with social and intellectual community, engagement, support, advising and mentorship; and (3) the ideal size and composition of the graduate student body across departments and programs.

The committee is asked to engage in a self-study, and informed by that assessment and comparison with our peers, to examine a variety of specific questions, including:

• What is the mission of the Graduate School? What should we continue to monitor and examine to help us determine whether we are succeeding in fulfilling our mission?
• How do we compare to our closest peers in terms of recruitment, supporting graduate education and placement? What are the important differences in how we support graduate education? In which areas should we emulate our peers, and in which areas should we not, given Princeton’s distinctive characteristics?
• Are the right academic fields and degree programs available? Are there aspects of the existing programs that should be improved or restructured?
• Are we providing the best preparation for careers both within and outside the academy? How can we better track placement and improve placement outcomes?
• Keeping in mind that we likely will be operating in an environment where resources are relatively more constrained than they have been in the past, and that any allocative choices entails trade-offs, what are the most effective investments we could make in support of our goals for graduate education? By comparison, what would be the relatively lower priority investments? Given a fixed resource envelope, what would be most impactful in advancing the mission of the Graduate School? Possibilities to consider could include, but are not limited to 1) facilities, 2) financial support for graduate education, 3) programming to enhance the academic and non-academic experiences of graduate students, including providing meaningful professional development opportunities, and opportunities to increase the engagement of graduate alumni.

In conducting its work, the task force will be informed by other concurrent committees including those looking at sponsored research, academic areas and educational programs, and entrepreneurship. The task force will also be guided by the 2013 Report of the Trustee Ad Hoc Committee on Diversity, as diversity issues span the range of questions to be considered. The task force will also consult with members of the campus community, colleagues at peer institutions, and alumni. As input from graduate students will be especially important, the committee is asked to involve students early and throughout the process by convening focus groups. The final report of the committee is expected to include proposed guiding principles and priorities for the Graduate School, a set of standards against which to test future proposed changes, and a suite of recommendations to enhance the University’s graduate programs in the years to come.

Members

Chair

Sanjeev Kulkarni, Dean of the Graduate School; Professor of Electrical Engineering

Faculty members

• Zahid Chaudhary, Associate Professor of English
• Pablo Debenedetti, Dean for Research; Class of 1950 Professor in Engineering and Applied Science; Professor of Chemical and Biological Engineering
• Mikko Haataja, Professor of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering
• Sarah-Jane Leslie, Class of 1943 Professor of Philosophy; Acting Director, Program in Linguistics
• Erika Milam, Associate Professor of History
• Jean Schwarzbauer, Professor of Molecular Biology; Associate Chair, Department of Molecular Biology
• Keith Whittington, William Nelson Cromwell Professor of Politics; Professor of Politics

Student members

• Carolann Buff, Music
• Janeria Easley, Sociology
• Sean Edington, Chemistry
• Julio Herrera Estrada, Civil and Environmental Engineering

Staff members

• Mary Bechler, Associate Dean for Finance and Administration, Office of the Dean of the Graduate School
• Cole Crittenden, Associate Dean for Academic Affairs, Office of the Dean of the Graduate School
• Debra Foster, Associate Director for Administrative Planning, Office of the Executive Vice President
• Steven Gill, Budget Director and Associate Provost for Finance, Office of the Provost
• Chad Klaus, Vice President, University Services
• Jed Marsh, Vice Provost for Institutional Research, Office of the Provost
• Pulin Sanghvi, Executive Director, Career Services, Office of the Vice President for Campus Life
• Lisa Schreyer, Associate Dean for Student Life, Office of the Dean of the Graduate School

Reports

• Report of the Task Force on the Future of the Graduate School (.pdf)
• The Graduate School at Princeton: A statement by President Christopher L. Eisgruber and Provost David S. Lee (.pdf)

Charge

The humanities remain at the vital core of Princeton's mission, essential both to this University's commitment to scholarship that enables us to better understand the human condition and to its goal of providing students with an education that not only prepares them for satisfying vocations, but also forms and deepens them as individuals and as contributors to society. At a time when technology offers dazzling new possibilities and cultures collide in ways both exciting and dangerous, the humanities provide crucial insight into what matters in life, into the character of civilization, and into the capacity — and the limits — of people's ability to understand societies different from their own.

Yet, despite the urgent need for humanistic understanding in an era of rapid change and cultural disequilibrium, the humanities find themselves criticized at colleges and universities across the country because of budget cuts and calls for short-term accountability. These developments elsewhere make it all the more important that Princeton, where the place of the humanities is secure, play a leadership role in the future of the field, through both the scholarship that it generates and the students whom it educates.

To meet that challenge, the University will have to choose initiatives wisely. Over the last two decades, Princeton has invested heavily in infrastructure for the humanities, first with the renovation of East Pyne and Chancellor Green and then with the renovation of Firestone Library. Princeton has also created important new programs, including the fabulously successful Society of Fellows, the Center for African American Studies, and the interdisciplinary doctoral program in the humanities.

With the Firestone renovation past its midpoint and scheduled to conclude in 2018, and with Green Hall projected to be used for the humanities in the future, the time has come to consider the needs, challenges and opportunities that lie ahead. Numerous possibilities for investment have been mentioned, including media studies, a humanities center, new programs in cultural or area studies, or simply more support for existing programs or departments. The University cannot pursue all of these possibilities, and it will be essential to prioritize goals so that Princeton's initiatives in the humanities are both successful and significant.

To that end, we would like the committee to answer the following questions:

1. What are Princeton's strengths and weaknesses in the humanities? How do Princeton's programs compare to those at peer institutions?
2. What are the most important trends, challenges, and opportunities affecting the humanities today, and how should Princeton respond to them?
3. How do the departments and programs in the humanities currently collaborate with the Lewis Center for the Arts? With the Princeton Art Museum? With the Princeton Library? With international initiatives? Is there untapped potential in some of these collaborations?
4. What are the highest priority initiatives that Princeton should undertake to extend its leadership in the humanities and education? To what extent does Princeton have opportunities to reallocate existing resources to supplement any new investments it might make on behalf of these initiatives?
5. How best can Princeton ensure the excellence and impact of its undergraduate and graduate teaching programs in the humanities?
6. How should Princeton define and evaluate the success of its initiatives in the humanities?

Members

Chair

• Denis Feeney, Chair, Council of the Humanities; Giger Professor of Latin; Professor of Classics; Director, Program in Humanistic Studies; Director, Stewart Seminars in Religion

Faculty members

• Göran Blix, Associate Professor of French and Italian
• Scott Burnham, Scheide Professor of Music History; Professor of Music
• Anne Cheng, Professor of English and African American Studies
• Rachael DeLue, Associate Professor of Art and Archaeology
• Michael Gordin, Rosengarten Professor of Modern and Contemporary History; Professor of History
• AnneMarie Luijendijk, Professor of Religion; Chair, Committee for the Study of Late Antiquity
• Alexander Nehamas, Edmund N. Carpenter II Class of 1943 Professor in the Humanities; Professor of Philosophy and Comparative Literature

Staff members

• Kathleen Crown, Executive Director, Council of the Humanities (secretary)
• Toni Turano, Senior Associate Dean of the Faculty, Office of the Dean of the Faculty

Reports

• Report of the Task Force on the Future of the Humanities at Princeton University (.pdf)
• The Future of the Humanities at Princeton University: A Statement by President Christopher L. Eisgruber and Dean of the Faculty Deborah Prentice (.pdf)

Charge

from President Christopher L. Eisgruber

Princeton University has a longstanding and well-deserved reputation for global excellence in the natural sciences. Despite the University's relatively small size, Princeton scientists have consistently been at the forefront of discovery, and its undergraduate and graduate teaching have been unsurpassed in quality. The University has ensured the high quality of its departments by investing at once boldly and judiciously: Princeton has concentrated its efforts on fields and research projects where it can perform superbly, and it has invested aggressively in those fields to ensure that its faculty, graduate students and undergraduates have the resources they need to succeed. Over the last decade, the University has continued this tradition in many ways, including but not limited to: rebuilding the Department of Chemistry, both figuratively and literally with the construction of the state-of-the-art Frick Laboratory; creating the Princeton Neuroscience Institute; constructing a new building for the Department of Psychology; launching the Center for Theoretical Science, building the High Performance Computing Research Center; and recruiting and retaining key faculty in all of the science departments.

Princeton will again have to choose wisely in the decade ahead, when it will confront new challenges and opportunities during a period when revenues may be more constrained than they have been in recent decades. I am accordingly asking this task force to assess the University's strengths and challenges in the natural sciences, and to comment on how best the University can support current fields and seize emerging opportunities. I hope that the task force will pay special attention to the University's role with regard to environmental science, which is of growing interest to our students and growing urgency to the world.

More specifically, I would like the committee to answer the following questions:

1. What are the University's current strengths and weaknesses in the natural sciences?
2. What are the University's advantages and disadvantages in the natural sciences by comparison to the world's other outstanding research universities?
3. What fields or emerging trends most require the University's attention in the years ahead as it shapes its teaching and research programs? What areas in the natural sciences most require the University's attention as it contemplates new fundraising and investment opportunities?
4. Does the University have the opportunity to redeploy existing resources in the natural sciences to increase its capacity to respond to evolving needs and challenges?
5. How should the University define and evaluate the success of any new investments that it might make in the natural sciences?

Members

Chair

• Lars Hedin, Professor of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology and the Princeton Environmental Institute; Chair, Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology

Faculty members

• Elizabeth Gould, Dorman T. Warren Professor of Psychology; Professor of Psychology and the Princeton Neuroscience Institute; Chair, Department of Psychology
• Yibin Kang, Warner-Lambert/Parke-Davis Professor of Molecular Biology
• Tom Muir, Van Zandt Williams Jr. Class of 1965 Professor of Chemistry
• Igor Rodnianski, Professor of Mathematics
• David Spergel, Charles A. Young Professor of Astronomy on the Class of 1897 Foundation; Professor of Astrophysical Sciences; Chair, Department of Astrophysical Sciences
• Christopher Tully, Professor of Physics; Associate Chair, Department of Physics
• Bess Ward, William J. Sinclair Professor of Geosciences; Chair, Department of Geosciences

Staff members

• Karla Ewalt, Associate Dean for Research, Office of the Dean for Research (secretary)

Reports

• Final Report of the Task Force on the Natural Sciences (.pdf)
• The Natural Sciences at Princeton University: a Statement by President Christopher L. Eisgruber and Dean of the Faculty Deborah Prentice (.pdf)

Charge

The University's residential colleges serve as the nexus for the integration of academic and non-academic life, offering an array of academic and social programs to enhance the undergraduate experience.

As the University plans for the future, including potential additions to the undergraduate student body, the Task Force on the Residential College Model is charged with exploring a variety of questions pertaining to the residential college system.

In 2007, with the opening of Whitman College, Princeton launched a four-year residential college system in which three four-year residential colleges are paired with three two-year colleges. Prior to this transition, five two-year residential colleges had been in place since 1982. The system of paired two- and four-year colleges was intended to support community-building and engagement by creating more interaction for freshman and sophomore undergraduates with upperclass students, graduate students and faculty. Additionally, the expansion of the college system was designed to provide enhanced academic advising for all students as well as more robust living and dining options for upperclass residential life.

To encourage the most robust and productive thinking around the University's college model, task force members are asked to review and assess the strengths and weaknesses of the University's current college model and engage in "blue-sky" thinking on several topics. In particular, the task force is asked to explore the following areas creatively: (1) the ideal size and composition of the residential colleges and (2) the best ways in which the residential colleges can provide students with social and intellectual community, engagement, support, advising and mentorship. To investigate these areas, the task force is asked to examine a variety of questions, including but not limited to:

• What are our goals for the residential college system, especially as our undergraduate student population becomes more diverse? How well are we achieving these goals?
• How can we ensure that the University's residential college system supports the integration of the academic and non-academic aspects of student life to the fullest extent possible?
• How should residential colleges be sized and structured to develop a strong sense of community and engagement among undergraduates? How might they be used to encourage more connection between undergraduate and graduate students?
• What are our goals for upperclass affiliation with the residential colleges and how can we best achieve these goals?
• To what extent and how should the University encourage faculty engagement in the colleges?
• Are there opportunities to improve the residential college advising program?
• Are there opportunities to reallocate existing resources for residential colleges for high priority programs and initiatives?
• Is the paired two-year/four-year model accomplishing the stated goal of "taking fullest possible advantage of the diversity and educational opportunities at Princeton?" If not, what changes would enable the realization of this goal?
• How can the residential college model best provide students with residential and co-curricular experiences that support their career and life goals? How can the system best support and enhance the University's culture of service? How can the colleges foster increased opportunities for student leadership?
• How best can the University evaluate and measure success as it aims to enhance the residential college model?

In conducting its work, the task force will be informed by the 2002 Report of the Four-Year College Program Planning Committee as well as the 2011 Report of the Working Group on Campus Social and Residential Life. The task force will also consult with members of the campus community and assess the range of residential college systems at peer institutions. As input from undergraduate students will be especially important, the committee is asked to involve students early and throughout the process by convening focus groups. The final report of the task force is expected to include proposed guiding principles and priorities for the residential college system, a set of standards against which to test future proposed changes to the residential college model, and a suite of recommendations to enhance the University's college system in the years to come.

Members

Chair

• Nicole Shelton, Professor of Psychology; Associate Chair, Department of Psychology; Master, Butler College

Faculty members

• Margot Canaday, Associate Professor of History
• Eric Gregory, Professor of Religion
• Michael Hecht, Professor of Chemistry; Master, Forbes College
• Clarence Rowley, Professor of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering

Student members

• Jane Baldwin, Graduate Student, Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences
• Carlos Sotelo, Class of 2017
• Megan Steffen, Graduate Student, Anthropology
• Emmy Williams, Class of 2015

Staff members

• Kathleen Deignan, Dean of Undergraduate Students, Office of the Dean of Undergraduate Students
• Claire Fowler, Senior Associate Dean of the College, Office of the Dean of the College    
• Rebecca Graves-Bayazitoglu, Dean of Whitman College; Lecturer in English
• Mellisa Thompson, Director of Student Life, Forbes College        
• Chad Klaus, Vice President, University Services        
• Hilary Parker, Assistant Vice President, Office of the President

Reports

• Report of the Task Force on the Residential College Model (.pdf)
• Residential Colleges at Princeton University: A statement by President Christopher L. Eisgruber, Provost David S. Lee, and Executive Vice President Treby Williams (.pdf)

Charge

from Dean of the Woodrow Wilson School Cecilia Rouse

Timed to coincide with the University's strategic review, this year the Woodrow Wilson School will undertake a self-study/strategic review that will culminate in an external review in 2015. The purpose of this self-study is to identify issues and priorities that will help guide the continued development of the WWS over the next decade. In addition to identifying the strengths of the School (in terms of structure, curriculum and coverage of policy areas), the self-study and strategic review should also identify policy, curricular issues and faculty support that will be important to help it remain a premier policy school. Further, while this study will not serve as a comprehensive review of our academic programs, the committee should consider whether our programs are aligned and well positioned relative to trends in public policy research and education more generally.

The committee will meet regularly this fall and the faculty will be kept apprised of its progress through reports to the Faculty Council as well as faculty meetings. I am aiming for a final report to be completed the first week of April 2015, with the external review occurring in late April or early May. 

The committee is charged with addressing the following broad issues:

1. Overall Assessment of the Strengths and Weaknesses of the School
   What is the central purpose of the WWS? What are our current strengths, in terms of faculty research, curriculum and experience of the students while they are here? What are our current weaknesses?
2. Coverage of Important Areas of Public Policy
   What are important emerging areas in public policy, both nationally and internationally? Does our faculty research address these areas? Does our curriculum cover them? If not, should the curriculum be revised to accommodate them?
3. Faculty Roles
   What are the most important roles and activities of the faculty at the WWS? What are the roles of practitioners and faculty visitors at the WWS? Should we be more creative in public policy education, for example by encouraging more team-teaching (e.g., by matching tenured faculty with practitioners or teams of multidisciplinary faculty) or by hosting a summer program for policy leaders or journalists? 
4. Community
   Is there a strong sense of community between and among WWS faculty, students and staff? If not, how should we foster a better sense of community at the School? Are there specific initiatives that the School can undertake?
5. External Relationships
   What is the School’s relationship with the "policy" community? Should the WWS facilitate further collaboration with other academic and non-academic institutions in the U.S. and abroad to improve the diversity of faculty research?  

In addition to the issues addressed above, the report will also contain a description of the recent reform to our undergraduate curriculum, an update on implementation, and potentially an assessment of the new curriculum’s impact on the distribution of faculty effort and other resources in the WWS. It will also include an evaluation of whether we have the right level and kind of staff and IT support for our faculty and classrooms. Finally, as we consider the future of WWS, we are cognizant of our resources and have already taken important steps to strengthen our budget through strategic realignments and reductions; the report will contain an account of these efforts. All of these sections will be written by those faculty and staff most closely associated with each respective area or activity.

Members

Chair

• Cecilia Rouse, Dean of the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs; Lawrence and Shirley Katzman and Lewis and Anna Ernst Professor in the Economics of Education; Professor of Economics and Public Affairs

Faculty members

• Brandice Canes-Wrone, Donald E. Stokes Professor in Public and International Affairs; Professor of Politics and Public Affairs
• Miguel Centeno, Musgrave Professor of Sociology; Professor of Sociology and International Affairs; Chair, Department of Sociology
• Jan de Loecker, Associate Professor of Economics and International Affairs
• Susan Fiske, Eugene Higgins Professor of Psychology; Professor of Psychology and Public Affairs
• Gene Grossman, Jacob Viner Professor of International Economics; Professor of Economics and International Affairs; Director, International Economics Section
• John Ikenberry, Albert G. Milbank Professor of Politics and International Affairs
• Peter Jaffe, Professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering; Associate Director for Research, Andlinger Center for Energy and the Environment
• Harold Shapiro, President of the University, Emeritus; Professor of Economics and Public Affairs, Woodrow Wilson School
• Keith Wailoo, Townsend Martin Professor of History and Public Affairs; Vice Dean, Woodrow Wilson School

Staff members

• Todd Bristol, Associate Dean for Administration, Finance and Planning, Woodrow Wilson School
• Christine Gage, Special Assistant to the Dean, Woodrow Wilson School

Reports

• Report of the Woodrow Wilson School Self-Study and Strategic Review Committee (.pdf)
• Public and International Affairs at Princeton University: A statement by President Christopher L. Eisgruber and Provost David S. Lee (.pdf)