Purpose

      A remarkable consensus exists both internally and externally regarding the current strength of the College of Charleston and its strong competitive position among colleges and universities in the state and the region. The College has been blessed with outstanding leadership, marked most recently by the eight-year term of office of President Alexander M. Sanders, Jr. The financial condition of the College is sound and the enrollments of the College are healthy. The academic quality and reputation of the College continues to rise. Since it is far better to plan during time of prosperity than during time of crisis, the College is at an ideal point to begin the process of planning for its future. As the futurist John Schaar has observed: "The future is not some place we are going to, but one that we are creating. The paths are not to be found, but made, and the activity of making them, changes both the maker and the destination." Accordingly, now is the time for the College of Charleston to begin the exciting and challenging process of creating this future.

Process

      In July 1998, the Board of Trustees of the College of Charleston and President Sanders established a long range/strategic planning initiative for the College of Charleston. A Long Range Planning Coordinating Committee (LRPCC) was formed and charged with the responsibility of creating an open and inclusive process to gather and analyze information. This committee was also charged with the responsibility of providing a preliminary report of observations and scenarios of possible institutional structures to the President and the Board, which would assist them in articulating a vision for the College of Charleston. The committee established nine working groups, composed of one hundred and thirty members of the faculty, staff, board of trustees, student body, alumni, and business community. These working groups each conducted an environmental scan, assessing various strengths and weaknesses of, and opportunities and challenges for the College. This document summarizes the findings of these working groups.

Scenarios

      Traditionally, four-year institutions fall within three broad categories: liberal arts and sciences colleges, comprehensive universities, and research universities. These categories basically proceed along a continuum with certain distinguishing features for each of these categories.

      At one end of the spectrum is the liberal arts and sciences college. This type of institution ordinarily has a small student body of less than 5,000 students and minimally emphasizes the non-traditional liberal arts disciplines (e.g., business and education). The focus of the institution is on teaching traditional aged 18-25 years old undergraduate students by full-time roster faculty. This means that there are few non-traditional students, few non-roster faculty (e.g., adjunct and graduate teaching assistants), few large classes, and few, if any, graduate programs or graduate students. The institution is notably stable in terms of enrollments, faculty, programs, and curriculum. Research plays a secondary and often tertiary role at these institutions (behind both teaching and service). Virtually all of these institutions have strong core or general education requirements to assure the liberally or broadly educated individual. Finally, there is a commitment to the development of the whole person, which includes an emphasis on character, leadership, and citizenship.

      At the opposite end of the spectrum is the research university. This type of institution is in many ways the antithesis of the liberal arts and sciences college. These institutions are ordinarily large (i.e., more than 15,000 students) and place significant emphasis on non-traditional liberal arts disciplines. The focus of a large segment of the faculty is on research, which requires large endowments, grants, and fundraising to support these requisite research initiatives. The graduate programs, and thus graduate students, typically assume a higher priority than the undergraduate students. At the undergraduate level there are large numbers of non-traditional students, large numbers of lower-level undergraduate courses taught by adjuncts or graduate teaching assistants, and a significant number of large undergraduate courses, particularly at the lower division. The emphasis at a research university, as the name denotes, is predictably upon research rather than teaching or service. Because of the lack of emphasis on the undergraduate programs in comparison to the graduate programs, there is typically either a weak or non-existent undergraduate core curriculum. The faculty, programs, curriculum, though not necessarily enrollments, are in a constant state of flux, particularly at the graduate level. Lastly, there is little, if any, emphasis on the development of the whole person.

      In between the liberal arts and sciences college and the research university is an emerging type of institution often referred to as the comprehensive university. These types of institutions are typically public, usually located in major urban areas, and have ordinarily evolved from smaller regional institutions to medium or large universities (i.e., 10,000 to 15,000 students). Much like their research university counterparts, comprehensive universities place a heavy emphasis on non-traditional (i.e., non-liberal arts) programs. These institutions are often in an evolving state and are simply on the way towards becoming research universities. Consequently, many of the same characteristics of the research universities are already present (e.g., a faculty focused on research, reduced emphasis on the undergraduate students, increased interest in non-traditional liberal arts programs, large numbers of non-traditional age students, a loosely structured core or general education curriculum, and a significant number of large undergraduate classes often taught by adjuncts or graduate students). The comprehensive university, sometimes even more than the research university, is in a state of what seems to be perpetual growth of faculty, programs, curriculum, and students. By being "comprehensive," the institution is entrepreneurial by nature and is constantly looking for new opportunities for expansion to meet perceived new markets (e.g., distance education) or increased regional or local demands. Again, because of the size of the institution, as well as the increased emphasis on research and graduate programs, there is reduced focus on the relationships with and development of the undergraduate student.

A fundamental, if not the fundamental, question for the College of Charleston is whether any of the three scenarios outlined above reflects either what the College is at the present time or what the College should aspire to be in the future. The answer to this question will establish the parameters of the vision for the College of Charleston and is best found by examining the culture and values of the College; the political and legal environment; the competitive niche of the College; technology issues for the institution; the educational environment; economic issues; social and demographic issues; finance and facilities issues; and programs, enrollments, and human resource issues.

Below is a summary of the observations of each of the nine working groups. [Note: Full copies of the working group reports, supporting documentation, and names of the participants may be found at the College of Charleston website at http://www.cofc.edu/~lrpcc/ and on reserve at the Robert Scott Small Library.]

(1) Core Values and Culture

      According to the Institutional Goals Inventory recently conducted by the College, the primary core values of the College of Charleston are largely consistent with those found at a liberal arts college (e.g., primary emphasis on teaching and providing a liberal education to undergraduate students in the arts and sciences) and are least compatible with the culture and values traditionally found at research universities. While some aspects of the values and culture of the College align with components of the comprehensive university and not the liberal arts college (e.g., emphasis on vocational preparation and non-traditional student enrollment), many of the core values of the College (e.g., the focus on undergraduate teaching, personal relationships, development of the whole person, and a strong core or general education curriculum) are, nevertheless, incompatible with the comprehensive university. None of these scenarios (i.e., liberal arts and sciences colleges, comprehensive universities, and research universities) is an ideal fit for the core values and culture of the College of Charleston. Accordingly, the College should develop its own alternate model that is more consistent with the core values and culture of the institution.

(2) Political and Legal Environment

      Based upon interviews conducted with members of the South Carolina General Assembly, the state legislature, as well as local government, appears to have a strong appreciation for the level of academic excellence that the College provides. This recognition derives from an understanding of the quality of the institution itself rather than from an understanding of or appreciation for liberal arts and sciences education. This basis of judgment makes differentiation in funding based upon this category of school (i.e., a liberal arts and sciences college or university) problematic for the College. The only major concern expressed about the College was growth-related. This concern was primarily related to future growth, although there are also current infrastructure issues that remain problematic (e.g., parking). Both the General Assembly and the CHE have expressed opposition to the addition of any more research universities in South Carolina and have instead placed the College of Charleston with eight other public colleges in a sector that bears the generic title "Four Year Colleges and Universities." Thus, the political reality is that designated research university status for the College, even if desired institutionally, is highly unlikely. Regrettably, neither liberal arts nor comprehensive university status is likely to trigger additional state funding for the College. Accordingly, the quality of the College rather than the status of the College will likely dictate legislative funding opportunities for the institution for the foreseeable future.

(3) Competitiveness

      According to Admission Office statistics, the College finds itself in the unique position of competing for students with large flagship research universities (e.g., University of South Carolina, Clemson, University of Georgia, and University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill), with actual or aspiring comprehensive universities (e.g., Winthrop University), and with liberal arts colleges (e.g., Furman and Elon). To maintain a competitive advantage, it appears that the College needs to retain its commitment to providing a high-quality undergraduate education, while addressing the demonstrable needs of the adult community for diversified and increased graduate offerings, provided that these graduate offerings can be mounted without diminishing the quality of the undergraduate program. This charge does not readily fit, however, within the typical mission of the research university, the comprehensive university, or the liberal arts and sciences college. Instead, the College's competitive niche will require a unique blending of the appropriate components from the missions of the liberal arts and sciences college and the comprehensive university.

(4) Technology

      The campus use of technology is growing exponentially and it is increasingly difficult for the College's technology infrastructure to keep pace with the rising use and accompanying costs. The technology shortcomings of the College of Charleston (e.g., an inadequate number of computer or "smart" classrooms, lack of network/internet wired residence halls, an inadequate internet and network connection to meet increased demand, lack of an adequate training and support structure, and lack of an adequate funding mechanism for technology costs) are not necessarily unique to the College. Furthermore, these issues are not unique to any particular category of institution, although overall technology costs are higher at research and comprehensive universities, both because of their size and programs. Irrespective of the particular vision selected for the College of Charleston, the College must be prepared to address these issues, since access to and utilization of technology is essential to the accomplishment of the institutional mission and goals.

(5) Educational Issues

      Because of the location, size, and academic stature of the College, the institution has a unique role and responsibility to meet the educational needs of the local community, the state, and the nation. First and foremost, the College of Charleston should offer a high quality education to the qualified students of the State of South Carolina, with attention to the Lowcountry region, as well as to other U.S. and international students. Included within this responsibility should be a commitment to provide these educational programs to an increasingly diverse student population. Second, the College must remain cognizant of the fact that its ability to offer high quality programs is dependent upon the presence of a pool of qualified students from which to recruit. The majority of the College's students are from South Carolina, with the largest single group still coming from the tri-county area. It is in the College's best interests, therefore, to work diligently with State educational officials and local school districts to maintain and improve the pool of qualified high school graduates. This role and responsibility will require the College, irrespective of the category of higher education institution it selects for its vision, to demonstrate a strong service commitment to the State and a partnership orientation to improve the overall education system. Accordingly, the College's teacher education program must be prepared to involve all appropriate disciplines in the preparation of teachers, continue the College's high degree of participation in state Pre K-12 initiatives, encourage and train students to incorporate new technologies in the classroom, assume a leadership role in addressing teacher quality issues, and provide more professional development opportunities for teachers.

(6) Economic Issues

      The liberal arts and sciences tradition of the College differentiates this institution from research and comprehensive universities in our state and region and operates to the economic advantage of both our liberal arts and sciences and non-liberal arts and sciences graduates. Research confirms that liberal arts and sciences graduates will continue to be valued in the labor market due to their broad-based education and their ability to continually learn, communicate effectively, solve problems, and adjust to change. The demand for liberal arts and sciences graduates and the life skills that these students have acquired as graduates of the College of Charleston's arts and sciences programs assure that these students will be competitive in the marketplace.

      Traditionally, liberal arts and sciences colleges lack a commitment to provide strong, non-liberal arts degree programs. At the College of Charleston, however, the institution has a commitment to provide non-liberal arts programs (e.g., business, accounting, education, and communication) that are as academically sound and supported as the liberal arts and sciences programs. Importantly, the College requires that graduates of the College's non-liberal arts programs meet the same general education requirements as the institution's liberal arts and sciences graduates. This general education requirement is contrary to the practice of most comprehensive and research universities that typically do not mandate that all undergraduate students receive appropriate exposure to a liberal education in the arts and sciences. In effect, the College of Charleston's practice gives graduates of the College's non-liberal arts and sciences programs an advantage over their comprehensive or research university counterparts, since the College's graduates not only benefit from a strong program in their major, but also acquire the intellectual and life skills developed by completion of the College's general education requirement.

      Accordingly, the economic outlook for the College's liberal arts and sciences graduates and for its non-liberal arts and sciences graduates is bright. The College's commitment to provide a high quality education in all of its majors, as well as a liberal education to each of its students through the College's general education requirement, places all College of Charleston graduates in a unique position in the marketplace and serves both society and them well.

(7) Social and Demographics

      The projected increases in the number and ethnic diversity of traditional and non-traditional students at a State, regional, and national level will increase the demand for access to expanded educational programs at the College of Charleston. Neither the "pure" liberal arts and sciences model nor the comprehensive or research university model is adequate to handle this demand. Adoption of a "pure" liberal arts and sciences model would be a regression for the College, since it would require more limited areas of study, fewer students, a loss of diversity, and reduced ability to address the needs of the community and the state. The adoption of a comprehensive or research university model would address the demand for increased access to more programs at both the graduate and undergraduate level. Unfortunately, it would concomitantly require significant changes in funding to meet the costs of the additional faculty, support staff, and facilities necessary to support these programs. Further, as previously observed, significant increases in graduate programs would run contrary to the core values of the institution that places its highest priority on the teaching of undergraduate students. Likewise, significant increases in undergraduate students would be wholly contrary to the major political concern that the College faces with the downtown community- i.e., growth.

(8) Finance and Facilities

      The College is in strong financial condition, which significantly increases the ability of the institution to meet its own facilities and programmatic needs. The College is fortunate to have new space (i.e., Addlestone Library) and newly renovated space (i.e., Robert Scott Small Library) that will be available within the next two years, as well as the opportunity to acquire the use of additional space contiguous to campus within that same period. As with any college or university, there is never enough existing money or debt capacity to meet all of the needs and wants of the constituents of the institution. Currently, the College has serious space/facilities issues (e.g., shortage of optimal teaching space, inadequate number of faculty offices, inadequate parking, and potentially overcrowded/substandard residence halls that lack network/internet connectivity). The adoption of a comprehensive or research university model would require significant expenditures on additional facilities and staff and would have the potential to affect negatively the current fiscal state of the College. Adoption of a "pure" liberal arts and sciences model would likewise have negative financial implications, since the predictable decline in enrollments would obviously decrease revenues obtained from tuition and state support. Absent concomitant decreases in costs (usually personnel costs), a budget deficit would occur. Accordingly, some alternate model incorporating the best aspects of both the liberal arts and the comprehensive university models is preferable.

(9) Programs, Enrollments, and Human Resources

      Although there are many positive aspects of both the liberal arts and sciences college and the comprehensive university, neither of these models is completely adequate for the programs, enrollment and personnel of the College of Charleston. The bedrock of the College since its founding has been the ability of its outstanding faculty to provide a high quality undergraduate education in the arts and sciences to academically qualified, predominantly traditional students. When the College became public in 1970, however, the mission of the institution was modified to include the responsibility to meet the educational needs of the community and the state. This modified mission has resulted in the offering of undergraduate degrees in non-traditional disciplines (e.g., business and communication), as well as the awarding of graduate degrees. Consequently, the College has evolved from a "pure" liberal arts and sciences college to a broader type of institution that has many of the features of the comprehensive university. Like the comprehensive university, the College offers graduate and non-traditional undergraduate degrees, and serves both traditional and non-traditional students. Unlike the comprehensive university, the College has been selective in the undergraduate and graduate programs that it has mounted, as well as the students that it has accepted into these programs. Further, while scholarly research has assumed greater importance at the College in recent years, excellence in the classroom remains the highest priority of the College of Charleston, in contrast to comprehensive universities. Accordingly, in order to use the strengths of the College in liberal arts and sciences undergraduate education and still meet the community demand for graduate and non-traditional undergraduate programs for both traditional and non-traditional students, a hybrid model is necessary.

CONCLUSION

      Although the models of the traditional liberal arts and sciences college and the comprehensive university have valuable components, neither model appears completely appropriate for the College of Charleston as it enters the new millennium. The internal factors that affect the College (i.e., the institution's core values and culture; the institution's finances and facilities; and the institution's programs and people) and the external factors that also affect the College (i.e., the political and economic climate; the current and projected social, demographic and educational environment; and the competitive position of the institution) all indicate that a different model and a different vision is needed for the College. Accordingly, the College of Charleston should create a new model for itself, a hybrid model that incorporates the best features of the liberal arts and sciences college and the comprehensive university.

      The call for a hybrid model reflects the belief that the College does not need to transform itself into a different type of institution than it currently is. Instead, it appears that the College should focus its efforts and its resources on finding ways to do what it does, only better. Accordingly, the College should adopt a vision that will guide and refine the decisions of the institution regarding admissions, curriculum, personnel, facilities, budgets, and campus activities. The College is in an enviable position, both fiscally and educationally, and, therefore, change purely for the sake of change would make little sense. Conversely, self-satisfaction and complacency in today's rapidly changing higher education environment would be foolhardy. The College should follow a path of self-improvement, not transformation and should adopt a model that builds upon those strengths of the institution, which have enabled the College of Charleston to achieve its current recognized status as an institution of high quality and academic excellence.

      Borrowing the best in both form and function from these two traditional models, the College of Charleston should envision itself as the "Nation's Premier 'Public Liberal Arts and Sciences University' for the 21st Century." The hallmark of the education provided by this institution should be exemplary teaching by a faculty of teacher-scholars who engage the students through exceptional instruction and collaborative scholarship. At the institution's historic downtown campus, the College of Charleston will provide in high quality facilities an outstanding liberal arts and sciences residential education that is designed to prepare a diverse student body to be contributing and productive members of society. Additionally, consistent with the "university" component of its name, as a Public Liberal Arts and Sciences University, the College will maintain a limited number of graduate programs that are cost effective and meet demonstrable community and state needs. Likewise, to the extent that there is sufficient community demand, the College may offer courses and programs at sites other than its downtown campus; however, the programs and courses at these alternate sites will at all times maintain the same academic standards and integrity as the main campus.

      This vision of the College of Charleston as the nation's premier Public Liberal Arts and Sciences University for the 21st Century is both bold and attainable. Such a vision draws upon the many strengths of the College and its people and represents a wonderful opportunity and exciting challenge for our institution as it enters the new millennium.

Purpose

      A remarkable consensus exists both internally and externally regarding the current strength of the College of Charleston and its strong competitive position among colleges and universities in the state and the region. The College has been blessed with outstanding leadership, marked most recently by the eight-year term of office of President Alexander M. Sanders, Jr. The financial condition of the College is sound and the enrollments of the College are healthy. The academic quality and reputation of the College continues to rise. Since it is far better to plan during times of prosperity than during time of crisis, the College is at an ideal point to begin the process of planning for its future. As the futurist John Schaar has observed: "The future is not some place we are going to, but one that we are creating. The paths are not to be found, but made, and the activity of making them, changes both the maker and the destination." Accordingly, now is the time for the College of Charleston to begin the exciting and challenging process of creating this future.

Process

      In July 1998, the Board of Trustees and President Sanders concluded that it was an appropriate time for the College of Charleston to engage in strategic planning for the 21st century. To accomplish this critical task, in October 1998, the President and the Board appointed a twenty-seven person Long Range Planning Coordinating Committee (LRPCC), consisting of trustees, faculty, staff, students, alumni, and other members of the Charleston community. The President and the Board retained Dr. Robert C. Shirley, a former college president and strategic planning expert, to assist the LRPCC in its efforts.

      Because of the length and complexity of the task, the process was bifurcated. The first phase culminates with the issuance of a final version of this report. The charge to the LRPCC was to produce a report that was the product of an open and inclusive process. As part of this charge, the LRPCC was asked to gather information, develop multiple scenarios for the College's future, engage in thoughtful analysis, and ultimately generate a preliminary report that would enable the President and the Board to articulate a clear vision for the College of Charleston.

      Once the President and Board articulate their collective vision for the College, then under the contemplated second phase, the campus and local community will engage in additional fact gathering and analysis that will ultimately produce an implementation plan. Thus, at the conclusion of the first phase, the College will have a clearly defined vision designed to answer the fundamental question of what the College of Charleston should be. The second report will then answer the pivotal follow-up question of what the College must do to make this vision a reality.

      The LRPCC began its work in Fall 1998. The Committee immediately identified ten constituent groups that the Committee recognized it needed to consult to gather information and opinions, prior to generating the mandated first-phase report. These constituent groups included members of the Board of Trustees, faculty, students, staff, deans, chairs, alumni, parents, business people, donors, government officials, local residents, and educators. Additionally, in order to facilitate the fact-finding process, the LRPCC divided into nine working groups: Culture & Values, Political & Legal Issues, Competitive Issues, Technology Issues, Educational Issues, Economic Issues, Social & Demographic Issues, Finance & Facilities Issues, and Programs/Enrollments & Human Resource Issues. The membership of these working groups ultimately totaled 130 and included a broad cross-section of individuals from the constituent groups noted above.

      Throughout 1999 the working groups engaged in extensive fact-finding and information-gathering. The working groups also conducted an analysis of those institutional strengths and weaknesses and external opportunities and threats applicable to the working group's particular area of focus. The activity of the working groups culminated in the issuance of a series of reports in January 2000. The information, observations, and recommendations contained in these working group reports serve as the foundation for this LRPCC report. [NOTE: Copies of the working group reports, supporting documentation, and names of the participants may be found at the College of Charleston website at http://www.cofc.edu/~lrpcc/ and on reserve at the Robert Scott Small Library.]

Scenarios

      Traditionally, four-year institutions fall within three broad categories: liberal arts and sciences colleges, comprehensive universities, and research universities. These categories basically proceed along a continuum with certain distinguishing features for each of these categories.

      At one end of the spectrum is the liberal arts and sciences college. This type of institution ordinarily has a small student body of less than 5,000 students and minimally emphasizes the non-traditional liberal arts disciplines (e.g., business and education). The focus of the institution is on teaching traditional aged 18-25 years old undergraduate students by full-time roster faculty. This means that there are few non-traditional students, few non-roster faculty (e.g., adjunct and graduate teaching assistants), few large classes, and few, if any, graduate programs or graduate students. The institution is notably stable in terms of enrollments, faculty, programs, and curriculum. Research plays a secondary and often tertiary role at these institutions (behind both teaching and service). Virtually all of these institutions have strong core or general education requirements to assure the liberally or broadly educated individual. Finally, there is a commitment to the development of the whole person, which includes an emphasis on character, leadership, and citizenship.

      At the opposite end of the spectrum is the research university. This type of institution is in many ways the antithesis of the liberal arts and sciences college. These institutions are ordinarily large (i.e., more than 15,000 students) and place significant emphasis on non-traditional liberal arts disciplines. The focus of a large segment of the faculty is on research, which requires large endowments, grants, and fundraising to support these requisite research initiatives. The graduate programs, and thus graduate students, typically assume a higher priority than the undergraduate students. At the undergraduate level there are large numbers of non-traditional students, large numbers of lower-level undergraduate courses taught by adjuncts or graduate teaching assistants, and a significant number of large undergraduate courses, particularly at the lower division. The emphasis at a research university, as the name denotes, is predictably upon research rather than teaching or service. Because of the lack of emphasis on the undergraduate programs in comparison to the graduate programs, there is typically either a weak or non-existent undergraduate core curriculum. The faculty, programs, curriculum, though not necessarily enrollments, are in a constant state of flux, particularly at the graduate level. Lastly, there is little, if any, emphasis on the development of the whole person.

      In between the liberal arts and sciences college and the research university is an emerging type of institution often referred to as the comprehensive university. These types of institutions are typically public, usually located in major urban areas, and have ordinarily evolved from smaller regional institutions to medium or large universities (i.e., 10,000 to 15,000 students). Much like their research university counterparts, comprehensive universities place a heavy emphasis on non-traditional (i.e., non-liberal arts) programs. These institutions are often in an evolving state and are simply on the way towards becoming research universities. Consequently, many of the same characteristics of the research universities are already present (e.g., a faculty focused on research, reduced emphasis on the undergraduate students, increased interest in non-traditional liberal arts programs, large numbers of non-traditional age students, a loosely structured core or general education curriculum, and a significant number of large undergraduate classes often taught by adjuncts or graduate students). The comprehensive university, sometimes even more than the research university, is in a state of what seems to be perpetual growth of faculty, programs, curriculum, and students. By being "comprehensive," the institution is entrepreneurial by nature and is constantly looking for new opportunities for expansion to meet perceived new markets (e.g., distance education) or increased regional or local demands. Again, because of the size of the institution, as well as the increased emphasis on research and graduate programs, there is reduced focus on the relationships with and development of the undergraduate student.

      A fundamental, if not the fundamental, question for the College of Charleston is whether any of the three scenarios outlined above reflects either what the College is at the present time or what the College should aspire to be in the future. The answer to this question will establish the parameters of the vision for the College of Charleston and is best found by examining the culture and values of the College; the political and legal environment; the competitive niche of the College; technology issues for the institution; the educational environment; economic issues; social and demographic issues; finance and facilities issues; and programs, enrollments, and human resource issues.

Core Values and Culture

      Clearly, any vision for the College of Charleston should be compatible with the core values and culture of the institution and its constituents, since the changing of core values is a slow and often highly disruptive process. These core values, in turn, shape the culture of the institution. Constituent surveys (e.g., Institutional Goals Inventory) and other research reveal that the College's most important institutional core value is academic excellence. There is broad consensus that this presently is and must remain the guiding principle for the College of Charleston.

      Additional identified groupings of core values groups are campus community, collegiality, and civility; intellectual orientation; intellectual/aesthetic environment; and academic development (i.e., high standards, general education, support of the major, and preparation for advanced scholarly study). Other core values also found to be important to the College include: democratic governance; individual achievement; freedom; advanced training; accountability/efficiency; understanding diversity; a sense and pride of place; student competency in reading, writing, and math; institutional reputation; technologically competitive environment; advising; responsible behavior of students; vocational preparation; and maintenance of a global campus.

      The vision for the College should build upon each of these core values and emphasize personal relationships, excellence in all programs, and the primacy of teaching and learning in a highly stimulating intellectual environment. The appearance of "Academic Advising" as a core value, for example, reflects the belief that the personal relationships found at the College are an important part of the teaching function and learning environment and will require increased emphasis in the future. Nurturing these values requires continued evidence of a concern for the individual and for the personal development of all members of the College community in the delivery of all programs and services. Emphasis should, therefore, be placed on minimizing undue bureaucracy and maximizing individual attention.

      Likewise, these core values will have programmatic implications. As the core value of "vocational preparation" reveals, both traditional and non-traditional students are placing increased emphasis on preparation for meaningful careers. This emphasis may require awareness of career concerns within traditional liberal arts and sciences programs, as well as increased interest in non-traditional liberal arts and sciences programs. This is not a new phenomenon for the College, as seen in the continued enrollment growth within the School of Business and Economics, as well as the high enrollments in the communication program (now department). It is noteworthy, however, that in the case of the communication program, the program's curriculum from the outset reflected a more theoretical liberal arts and sciences perspective than applied, vocational approach. The communication program is, therefore, a good example of how the traditional core values of the College as a liberal arts and sciences institution are brightly reflected in what would typically be regarded as a non-liberal arts and sciences program.

      Further, while there appears to be a clear internal consensus on the core values of the College, all constituents need to be more aware of these core values. In particular, the institution would benefit from more forceful and explicit communication of these core values to external constituencies. The strong commitment of the College to academic excellence in all its endeavors is important not only for academic reasons but for competitive and political reasons as well. For example, with the growing academic reputation of the College, increased explicit communication of these core values should enable the institution to recruit and retain better students.

Observations on Core Values and Culture

      The primary core values of the institution are mostly consistent with those found at a liberal arts college (e.g., primary emphasis on teaching and providing a liberal education to undergraduate students in the arts and sciences) and are least compatible with the culture and values traditionally found at research universities. Furthermore, while some aspects of the values and culture of the College align with components of the comprehensive university and not the liberal arts college (e.g., emphasis on vocational preparation and non-traditional student enrollment), many of the core values of the College (e.g., the focus on undergraduate teaching, personal relationships, development of the whole person, and a strong core or general education curriculum) are, nevertheless, incompatible with the comprehensive university. None of these scenarios (i.e., liberal arts and sciences colleges, comprehensive universities, and research universities) is an ideal fit for the core values and culture of the College of Charleston. Accordingly, the College should develop its own alternate model that is more consistent with the core values and culture of the institution.

Political and Legal Environment

      Interviews with members of the South Carolina General Assembly revealed that the state legislature has a high regard for the both the quality of the education that the College of Charleston provides and the increased academic standards that the institution has imposed on its students. It is also the perception of the legislators that the College's academic quality and stature will be even greater in the future. Obviously, the Legislature's support is essential for the future of the College, since the General Assembly remains a primary funding source for the institution. This legislative attitude towards the College has translated into greater financial support for the institution, particularly in the area of special capital projects, where the College has received more support than any other four-year college in the State.

      The greatest political concerns revolve around the size of the College and the impact that this size and possible growth has on the local community. Secondarily, there is a more focused concern among some members of the local community and government that the College has an inadequate number of residence hall beds and parking spaces to accommodate an institution of the size of the College of Charleston. These same concerns appear to dissipate beyond the confines of peninsular Charleston, which means that the political environment may tolerate, if not actively embrace, increased enrollment growth in alternate areas such as North Charleston or Daniel Island. Lastly, there remains a desire among a segment of state government (e.g., CHE and the General Assembly) to see the College continue to improve the diversity of its students and faculty.

Observations on Political and Legal Environment

      The General Assembly, as well as local government, appears to have a strong appreciation for the level of academic excellence that the College provides. This recognition derives from an understanding of the quality of the institution itself rather than from an understanding of or appreciation for liberal arts and sciences education. This basis of judgment makes differentiation in funding based upon this category of school problematic for the College. The only major concern expressed about the College was growth-related. This concern was primarily related to future growth, although there are also current infrastructure issues that remain problematic (e.g., parking). Both the General Assembly and the CHE have expressed opposition to the addition of any more research universities in South Carolina and have instead placed the College of Charleston with eight other public colleges in a sector entitled "Four Year Colleges and Universities." Thus, the political reality is that designated research university status for the College, even if desired institutionally, is highly unlikely. Regrettably, neither liberal arts nor comprehensive university status is likely to trigger additional state funding for the College. Accordingly, the quality of the College rather than the status of the College will likely dictate legislative funding opportunities for the institution for the foreseeable future.

Competitive Issues

      The College of Charleston has a set of competitive advantages that places the institution in an enviable position within the state, the region, and, increasingly, the nation. These advantages are readily apparent upon examination of the survey the Office of Admissions sent to students who were accepted for admission to the College of Charleston but later elected to enroll at other institutions. The reasons most often cited by prospective students as the basis of their interest in the College are (in rank order): location, academic reputation, the city and surrounding area, a specific program offering, campus beauty and aesthetics, influence of friends and family, campus underclass size, overall tuition costs, athletic teams and athletic opportunities, and proximity to home. Additional competitive plus factors for the College often cited by students are the social life of the College, the strength of the programs offered, the quality of the teaching faculty, and the presence of a welcoming environment for minorities.

      Conversely, prospective students also identified several negative factors that make the College less competitive. The two negative factors most often cited by students and over which the College has some control are the condition of the residence halls and the lack of scholarship and overall financial aid support. The working group on technology also verified the competitive disadvantage of the residence halls and concluded that the lack of "wired" residence halls placed the College at a competitive disadvantage when seeking top students. Similarly, this working group also observed that other technology deficiencies such as an inadequate number of "smart" classrooms and an inadequate number of computer classrooms were negative competitive factors.

      According to the student survey, the College's primary competitors overall for students are USC-Columbia, Clemson, University of Georgia, UNC-Chapel Hill, Winthrop, and Elon College. Additionally, the College's main competitors for top students in the South Carolina are USC-Honors College, Furman, and Wofford. Based upon the positive factors cited above and the growing popularity of the College across the state and the nation, the College of Charleston is the college/university in the state most capable of becoming a nationally acclaimed institution (i.e., comparable to the perceived quality of the University of North Carolina- Chapel Hill, the University of Virginia, and William and Mary).

      The competitive niche of the College becomes clearer when comparative information from the Cooperative Institutional Research Program's survey of first-time freshmen at the College of Charleston is examined. Survey results indicate a strong interest in enrollment by adult students and the general desire to see the College recruit a more diverse student body. Increasingly, students recognize that their education is enhanced by the presence of a diverse student body and faculty. At the same time, the College recruits a student body that is academically stronger and more affluent than the students at many institutions within our peer group. For example, compared to other institutions, the College enrolls more students who earn high grades in high school, plan to go to graduate school, and receive family support. Conversely, compared to other institutions, the College enrolls fewer students who attended public high schools, have financial concerns, enroll because of scholarship offers, and come from low-income families. A trend analysis of enrolled students over the past several years reveals an increase in the number of students with a "B" average in high school and in the number of students receiving family support. A corresponding trend analysis of enrolled students also reveals a decrease in the number of students living close to home, in the number of students who have financial aid concerns, and in the number of students who depend on scholarship support. Accordingly, one challenge for the College as it seeks to establish its competitive niche, will be to find ways to assure the continued improvement of both access and quality.

      From a competitive standpoint, its undergraduate education places the College in a position of competitive advantage and is the bedrock of the institution. Although there is a high demand locally for additional programs and courses at the graduate level (e.g., career-related graduate programs), it is the quality of the undergraduate program that is the basis for the conclusion that the College of Charleston has the potential to become a nationally acclaimed institution.

Observations on Competitive Issues

      The College finds itself in the unique position of competing for students with large flagship research universities (e.g., University of South Carolina, Clemson, University of Georgia, and University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill, with actual or aspiring comprehensive universities (e.g., Winthrop University), and with liberal arts colleges (e.g., Furman and Elon). To maintain a competitive advantage, it appears that the College needs to retain its commitment to providing a high quality undergraduate education to an increasingly diverse student population, while addressing the demonstrable needs of the adult community for diversified and increased graduate offerings, provided that these graduate offerings can be mounted without diminishing the quality of the undergraduate program. This charge does not readily fit, however, within the typical mission of the research university, the comprehensive university, or the liberal arts and sciences college. Instead, this competitive niche reflects a unique blending of the competitive component of the missions of the liberal arts and sciences college and the comprehensive university.

Technology Issues

      Like other colleges and universities nationwide, the College of Charleston is investing more heavily than ever before in technology to address the demands of its various constituencies. Faculty and traditional student demand for technology has grown and will continue to grow exponentially. Part of this increase is due to the realization of students that to be competitive in the workplace they need to be proficient with basic technologies. Non-traditional student use of technology will likewise grow as technology increases access to learning opportunities for both existing and new constituents who are time or place bound. The pressure will be on the College to provide a technology infrastructure that can accommodate the increased demand, as well as the mobility or portability of "ubiquitous access" to information, both on and off campus.

      The College's current technology infrastructure is inadequate to handle this increased demand. As previously noted, the College lacks an adequate number of "smart" classrooms" (i.e., classrooms with computer, teacher workstation, projector and screen), an adequate number of computer classrooms, and wired residence halls. Additionally, the College lacks a computer network and Internet connection capable of handling the increased demand, a media retrieval system that is available to all classroom buildings, and the necessary technology training and support structure. Meeting these technology needs will obviously entail increased costs for the institution, which will likely be problematic under the present funding mechanism that utilizes a department-oriented annual budgeting process.

Observations on Technology Issues

      The technology shortcomings noted above are not necessarily unique to the College. Additionally, these issues are not unique to any particular category of institution, although overall technology costs are higher at research and comprehensive universities, both because of their size and programs. Irrespective of the particular vision selected for the College of Charleston, the College must be prepared to address these issues, since access to and utilization of technology is essential to the accomplishment of the institutional mission and goals.

Educational Issues

      Clearly, the first responsibility of the College of Charleston is to provide high quality programs to a qualified student body. Fortunately, the College of Charleston has the capacity to continue to offer programs of very high quality, the ability to improve upon these programs, and the capability to attract top students from our state, our region and from across the nation. In order to compete for those students with other high quality academic institutions (e.g., Furman, Wake Forest, and William & Mary), the College must continuously survey the marketplace to determine which aspects of college programs are most likely to encourage high quality students to enroll at the College of Charleston.

      In addition to providing a high quality education to its current students, the College must recognize its role in the overall educational system. The teacher shortage in critical areas across the nation and the failures of the nation's Pre K-12 system to educate adequately the general population of students are well documented. Additionally, it is likewise apparent to all, as recent studies have noted, that the most significant factor in student learning is the quality of the teacher. The College draws almost 20% of its students from Charleston County and the high school students from this county have among the lowest SAT scores in the nation. The College, therefore, has a vested, practical interest in improving the quality of teachers and the Pre K-12 education system.

      For the College to continue to improve student access and quality simultaneously the institution must play a role in assuring that the skills, content, knowledge and performance expectations on standardized Pre K-12 tests are compatible with the College's expectations of its incoming students. Additionally, because the College itself will be providing education to an increasingly diverse population, it must continue to make a conscious effort to recruit and retain minority faculty and prepare teachers to teach a more diverse student population.

Observations on Educational Issues

      Because of the location, size, and academic stature of the College, the institution has a unique role and responsibility to meet the educational needs of the local community, the state, and the nation. First and foremost, the College of Charleston should offer a high quality education to the qualified students of the State of South Carolina, with attention to the Lowcountry region, as well as to other U.S. and international students. Included within this responsibility should be a commitment to provide these educational programs to an increasingly diverse student population. Second, the College must remain cognizant of the fact that its ability to offer high quality programs is dependent upon the presence of a pool of qualified students from which to recruit. The majority of the College's students are from South Carolina, with the largest single group still coming from the tri-county area. It is in the College's best interests, therefore, to work diligently with State educational officials and local school districts to maintain and improve the pool of qualified high school graduates. This role and responsibility will require the College, irrespective of the category of higher education institution it selects for its vision, to demonstrate a strong service commitment to the State and a partnership orientation to improve the overall education system. Accordingly, the College's teacher education program must be prepared to involve all appropriate disciplines in the preparation of teachers, continue the College's high degree of participation in state Pre K-12 initiatives, encourage and train students to incorporate new technologies in the classroom, assume a leadership role in addressing teacher quality issues, and provide more professional development opportunities for teachers.

Economic Issues

      The projected demand for college graduates in most fields will be strong in the next decade, including those graduates with degrees in the traditional liberal arts and sciences. In general, graduates with scientific and/or technical preparation will experience the greatest job opportunities. Increasingly, graduates will be expected to function in a global economy; therefore, the College's decision to "internationalize" the curriculum, maintain a strong language requirement, and expand the institution's study abroad and international exchange programs places the College on the "right track." Also, continued emphasis on attracting international students, developing degrees and curriculum with an international perspective, and supporting faculty efforts to sponsor and attend international conferences will further enhance the internationalization effort. The interest in expanding the role of the College in these efforts will be additionally heightened, since Charleston is a key player in the internationalization of the region's economy and further because of an increasingly diverse workforce that requires stronger English skills.

      As a public institution, the College will continue to experience pressure to assist the State in its economic development efforts. The College may assist in economic development by engaging in any of the following activities: developing advanced degrees in selected fields such as computer science and information technology, as well as executive education in business; offering distance learning opportunities for area employers; expanding continuing education offerings, particularly off the main campus; continuing training of economic developers through the S.C. Economic Developers' School and similarly developed training programs where needed; and offering undergraduate and graduate degree and non-degree certificate programs.

      Similarly, there will be increased demand for students who have already gained applied experience during the course of their college education. These experiences may range from internships and cooperative programs with local businesses to collaborative research initiatives between the College's students and faculty. The basic audience of the College will continue to be the traditional 18-22 year old recent high school graduate who is attending school full-time while seeking a B.A. or B.S. degree. There will also be a growing demand for education of non-traditional students, many of whom already work full-time and, therefore, seek programs tailored to their particular needs for subject matter, time, and place of delivery (e.g., distance education courses, web-based education, certificate programs, seminar and workshops for specific businesses and industries, and graduate programs geared to market needs such as an Executive M.B.A.). The common denominator is that each of these programs or offerings should prepare highly educated students who are capable of understanding and quickly adapting to a constantly changing work environment.

Observations on Economic Issues

      The liberal arts and sciences tradition of the College differentiates this institution from research and comprehensive universities in our state and region and operates to the economic advantage of both our liberal arts and sciences and non-liberal arts and sciences graduates. Research confirms that liberal arts and sciences graduates will continue to be valued in the labor market due to their broad-based education and their ability to continually learn, communicate effectively, solve problems, and adjust to change. The demand for liberal arts and sciences graduates and the life skills that these students have acquired as graduates of the College of Charleston's arts and sciences programs assure that these students will be competitive in the marketplace.

      Traditionally, liberal arts and sciences colleges lack a commitment to provide strong, non-liberal arts degree programs. At the College of Charleston, however, the institution has a commitment to provide non-liberal arts programs (e.g., business, accounting, education, and communication) that are as academically sound and supported as the liberal arts and sciences programs. Importantly, the College requires that graduates of the College's non-liberal arts programs meet the same general education requirements as the institution's liberal arts and sciences graduates. This general education requirement is contrary to the practice of most comprehensive and research universities that typically do not mandate that all undergraduate students receive appropriate exposure to a liberal education in the arts and sciences. In effect, the College of Charleston's practice gives graduates of the College's non-liberal arts and sciences programs an advantage over their comprehensive or research university counterparts, since the College's graduates not only benefit from a strong program in their major, but also acquire the intellectual and life skills developed by completion of the College's general education requirement.

      Accordingly, the economic outlook for the College's liberal arts and sciences graduates and for its non-liberal arts and sciences graduates is bright. The College's commitment to provide a high quality education in all of its majors, as well as a liberal education to each of its students through the College's general education requirement, places all College of Charleston graduates in a unique position in the marketplace and serves both society and them well.

Social and Demographic Issues

      The history of the College of Charleston is by now well known to most. The institution has evolved from being a private academy for gifted male scholars to a public institution that recruits, retains, and graduates a qualified, gifted, and diverse student body. Research on student populations indicates that the future student body of the College will be time-conscious and willing to pay for convenience, desirous of being different, more demanding of attention and service, motivated to serve others, insistent that their institution of choice has appropriate technologies available, outcome-oriented in regard to career status and financial security, and more sophisticated and savvy as consumers than many of their predecessors.

      The number and ethnic diversity of traditional freshmen is increasing nation-wide at the same time that the demand by non-traditional students for new or continuing education is also rising. With the increase in the number of professionals educated at master's and doctoral levels being hired by industry, the College should anticipate additional demand by traditional and non-traditional students for expanded graduate education. Increasingly, institutions must prepare both traditional and non-traditional students for life-long learning. Clearly, the needs and demands of these two cohorts differ. The College, however, must be prepared to provide educational delivery systems that are sophisticated and flexible enough to accommodate the learning needs and requirements of both non-traditional (e.g., via distance learning) and traditional (e.g., via technology enhanced instruction) students.

Observations on Social and Demographic Issues

      The projected increases in the number of traditional and non-traditional students will escalate the demand for access to expanded educational programs at the College of Charleston. Neither the "pure" liberal arts and sciences model nor the comprehensive or research university model is adequate to handle this demand. Adoption of a "pure" liberal arts and sciences model would be a regression for the College, since it would require more limited areas of study, fewer students, a loss of diversity, and reduced ability to address the needs of the community and the state.

      The adoption of a comprehensive or research university model would address the demand for increased access to more programs at both the graduate and undergraduate level. Unfortunately, it would concomitantly require significant changes in funding to meet the costs of the additional faculty, support staff, and facilities necessary to support these programs. Further, as previously observed, significant increases in graduate programs would run contrary to the core values of the institution, which places its highest priority on the teaching of undergraduate students. Likewise, significant increases in undergraduate students would be wholly contrary to the major political concern that the College faces with the downtown community- i.e., growth.

Finance and Facilities Issues

      The appropriately conservative fiscal policies of the College have placed the institution in a strong financial position. The insistence of the College that the recurring annual budget be based upon an assumption of no-enrollment growth has enabled the institution to weather financial downturns, meet unexpected expenses, and establish future enrollment levels without the fear of dramatic losses of revenue. Additionally, the College has, within the current fee structure, significant unused bonding authority for E&G operations. Remarkably, the excess debt service funds are sufficient to retire the College's outstanding E&G debt when the bonds are callable in 2002.

      The strong financial condition of the College provides opportunities for facilities improvements and program enhancements that are not normally available to public institutions in today's fiscal climate. The College is fortunate to have new physical space that is presently available (e.g., a portion of the BellSouth building); space that will definitely become available within the next few years (e.g., the new Addlestone library and the renovated Robert Scott Small library); and space that may become available (e.g., possible property on Daniel Island and property contiguous to the downtown campus).

      Nevertheless, the College still has serious space/facilities issues. Several facilities are overcrowded, overused, and undermaintained. There is a shortage of optimal teaching space, and adequate space for faculty offices remains an issue on campus. Also, as is the case with the rest of Charleston, parking spaces available to the College community are quite limited. Finally, as previously observed, the residence halls are only marginally acceptable in terms of physical condition and technology. These residence halls have also experienced overcrowding, although there is currently interest within the private sector to collaborate with the College to construct additional residence hall space.

      From an academic perspective, the current out-of-state enrollment is a strength and has improved the quality of the College. Financially, these enrollments have also been beneficial to the institution because of the tuition differential charged to these out-of-state students. These enrollments are not without some fiscal risk, however. If the percentage of out-of-state enrollments should be voluntarily or involuntarily decreased, such a decrease would necessitate budget adjustments and/or an increase in the current fee structure to maintain the current revenue stream.

Observations on Finance and Facilities

      The College is in a strong financial condition, which significantly increases the ability of the institution to meet its own facilities and programmatic needs. As with any college or university, there is never enough existing money or debt capacity to meet all of the needs and wants of the constituents of the institution. As previously observed, the adoption of a comprehensive or research university model would require significant expenditures on additional facilities and staff and would have the potential to affect negatively the current fiscal state of the College. Adoption of a "pure" liberal arts and sciences model would likewise have negative financial implications, since the predictable decline in enrollments would obviously decrease revenues obtained from tuition and state support. Absent concomitant decreases in costs (usually personnel costs), a budget deficit would occur. Accordingly, some alternate model incorporating the best aspects of both the liberal arts and the comprehensive university models is preferable.

Programs, Enrollments and Human Resources Issues

      At the heart of any vision for the College of Charleston lie the institution's programs, enrollments, and human resources. In basic terms, the vision must address three basic questions: (1) What shall the institution do? (i.e., programs); (2) Who shall the institution do it for? (i.e., enrollments); and (3) Who shall do it? (i.e., human resources).

      As previously discussed, there are three basic models or categories of institutions traditionally employed by colleges and universities in the United States: the "pure" liberal arts and sciences college, the comprehensive university, and the research university. Due to the existing political and fiscal constraints, as well as the inherent conflict with institutional values and culture, the research university can immediately be rejected as an appropriate model for the College of Charleston. The issue is then whether either the liberal arts and sciences college or the comprehensive university is an adequate model for the College. As will be seen below, the models differ significantly in terms of the target audiences, programs, resources required, and competitiveness.

      One alternative is to establish the College of Charleston as "THE" public liberal arts and sciences college of South Carolina. Under this model, the College would decrease the size of the student body, increase the academic quality of the student body, limit service to the adult community, re-evaluate those undergraduate programs that do not stem from traditional liberal arts and sciences disciplines, and re-evaluate the presence of graduate programs at the College. The focus of the College under this model would shift almost exclusively to the full-time, traditional undergraduate student and would ignore community demand for non-traditional (i.e., non- liberal arts and sciences) programs and students. The College would decrease class size both through the intentional reduction of the student body, as well as through the predictable decline in enrollments, which would result from the removal or de-emphasis of non-liberal arts and sciences programs (e.g., business, accounting, education, and communication).

      Under the pure liberal arts and sciences model, at a minimum, the College would severely limit the use of adjuncts, which would admittedly have significant financial implications for the College. Depending upon the extent of the enrollment decrease and the extent of the non-traditional program de-emphasis, the impact of adoption of this model on existing roster faculty is uncertain. Clearly, the priority for both fiscal and human resource allocation would shift almost entirely to the undergraduate liberal arts and sciences. The College would recruit and retain a faculty committed to undergraduate teaching in arts and sciences programs. This faculty would place its highest priority on teaching, and the greatest emphasis on scholarly research would be on that research that involves student/faculty collaboration. The College would want to increase diversity, although historically this is problematic at liberal arts and sciences colleges. The College would also expand its student services to reflect a greater student-centered orientation. Finally, the general education component of the curriculum would be evaluated and refined, since it would be the core component of the liberal arts and sciences experience.

      A second alternative is to establish the College of Charleston as a truly comprehensive university for the Lowcountry of South Carolina (i.e., to provide as many programs as possible for the ultimate good of the regional populace). The mission of this type of institution is sometimes referred to as "everything for everybody" and, if not carefully controlled can create the academic equivalent of urban sprawl. As a comprehensive university, the College would increase the enrollment of part-time students and decreased enrollments at either the undergraduate or graduate levels would result only from limitations of space and/or money. The goal of the comprehensive university, however, would be to expand enrollments particularly at the graduate level by adding a significant number of Master's degree programs in response to community needs and faculty interests (e.g., M.S. in Engineering and Master degree in Fine Arts). Both certificate programs at one end of the graduate program spectrum and doctoral programs at the other end of the spectrum would be pursued.

      Under the comprehensive university model, the College would likely expand the School of Business to meet community interest and the state demand for institutional support for economic development initiatives. The College would explore the possibility of establishing new, full-scale graduate programs such as a Law School. At the undergraduate level, the College would probably establish a School of General Studies for those students who, though admitted, were unable to meet the higher academic standards of the rest of the institution. Similarly, separate admissions standards and general education requirements would be established for different schools, programs, and student populations. The College would increase the use of off-campus sites to offer programs and would expand the number of programs designed to meet the needs of business, industry and the community. The College would also move heavily into distance education to meet its institutional mission to provide as many programs as possible to as a many people as require them. To accomplish this expanded role, the College would increase the number of full-time roster faculty; increase the class size; rely more heavily upon adjuncts; hire graduate assistants to teach large lower-division classes, and hire more graduate research assistants to support the faculty's expanded research agendas. Likewise, the College would hire more full-time campus support staff and expand the College's academic and non-academic facilities in order handle the increased number and variety of students.

      It appears clear, however, that neither of the two models discussed above is adequate for the College of Charleston. The "pure" liberal arts and sciences college model has been outgrown and the impact of scaling back to this type of institution would be both monumental and unwise. Conversely, the College does not have the physical space, resources, community or legislative support to grow into a comprehensive university. Instead, an appropriate hybrid model for the College needs to be found somewhere between the two existing models, which incorporates the best aspects of both the liberal arts and sciences college and the comprehensive university. It is the collective opinion of the Long Range Planning Coordinating Committee that the College can and should create such a model-the " Public Liberal Arts and Sciences University."

      As a Public Liberal Arts and Sciences University, the College of Charleston would place its highest priority on undergraduate programs and the instruction of undergraduate students. The College would retain its existing Master's level programs and would add other graduate programs to the extent that these programs are cost effective, meet community needs, and can best be delivered by the College. Undergraduate enrollments at the College's downtown campus would be stabilized at the current levels. The College would continue its efforts to increase the academic quality of the students, as well as the diversity of its student body (and faculty).

      The primary site for the College of Charleston would remain its historic, downtown campus. The College would ensure that classes remain relatively small (e.g., average class size of twenty-five students), would continue to increase full-time roster faculty, and would continue to decrease the use of adjuncts. The College would remain competitive in faculty salaries and benefits and would enhance these packages for faculty and staff whenever possible. Also, the College would hire faculty who are committed to the liberal arts and sciences tradition of the institution and who ascribe to the "teacher/scholar" model.

      Teaching would remain the highest priority of the faculty at the College of Charleston, and the College would provide greater rewards for high quality teaching. The general education curriculum would remain an essential feature of the undergraduate program and would be continually evaluated and refined by the faculty, as it deemed appropriate. As a public liberal arts and sciences university, the College would continue to emphasize and support scholarly research, though not at the expense of the faculty's commitment to teaching excellence. Particular emphasis and support would be given to scholarly research that involves student/faculty collaboration. The College would increase facilities and equipment both for collaborative and student research. Additionally, the facilities of the College would be upgraded to assure an environment conducive to high quality teaching and learning. The institution would also integrate and support the use of technology in the classroom where this technology improves the instructional effort and outcomes.

      The College would continue its efforts to "internationalize" and diversify the institution and would seek significant increases in scholarship support to meet the linked goals of increased access and increased academic quality. The Honors Program (or perhaps at some point the Honors College) would play a more central role in improving the academic quality of the student body. Student support services, both academic and non-academic, would be expanded. Both the student center and the residence halls would be improved to make the College more competitive for "top" students and to enhance the undergraduate experience of all of our students.

      Because the College recognizes the burden that undergraduate growth has on peninsular Charleston, the College may consider alternate sites to offer a portion of its courses/programs (e.g., North Charleston or Daniel Island). These alternate sites or, potentially, campuses should maintain the same academic standards as the downtown campus, although the curriculum at the alternate site might differ (e.g., graduate certificate programs). These off-campus sites might be more driven by community needs than the more traditional downtown campus. These sites might also house existing or future graduate programs and absorb the overflow from the downtown campus, paying particular attention to the different needs of non-traditional and graduate students.

Observations on Programs, Enrollments, and Human Resource Issues

      While there are many positive aspects of both the liberal arts and sciences college and the comprehensive university, neither of these models is completely adequate for the programs, enrollment and personnel of the College of Charleston. The bedrock of the College since its founding has been the ability of its outstanding faculty to provide a high quality undergraduate education in the arts and sciences to academically qualified, predominantly traditional students. This commitment to undergraduate teaching excellence is, of course, the essential feature of the liberal arts and sciences college. Since the College became public in 1970, however, the mission of the institution has been modified to include the responsibility to meet the educational needs of the community and the state. This modified mission has resulted in the offering of undergraduate degrees in non-traditional disciplines (e.g., business and communication), as well as awarding graduate degrees. Consequently, the College has evolved from a "pure" liberal arts and sciences college to a broader type of institution that has many of the features of the comprehensive university.

      Like the comprehensive university, the College offers graduate and non-traditional undergraduate degrees and serves both traditional and non-traditional age students. Unlike the comprehensive university, the College has been selective in the undergraduate and graduate programs that it has mounted, as well as the students that it has accepted into these programs. Further, while scholarly research has assumed greater importance at the College, excellence in the classroom remains the highest priority of the College of Charleston in contrast to the comprehensive university.

      In order to maximize the strengths of the College in liberal arts and sciences undergraduate education and still meet the community demand for graduate and non-traditional undergraduate programs for both traditional and non-traditional students, a hybrid model is necessary. Accordingly, it appears that the College would be best served if it created a niche for itself as a preeminent "Public Liberal Arts and Sciences University." As such, the institution would retain its primary commitment to liberal education and teaching and would also meet community and state demands for non-traditional degrees and programs for a broad range of students. Graduate and non-traditional undergraduate programs would be carefully added only after ascertaining that these programs are cost effective, meet demonstrable community or state needs, and can best be met by the College of Charleston. The College would primarily offer these programs on the downtown campus, although alternate sites would be used, provided that to do so is cost effective and that such satellite campuses would maintain the same academic standards and quality of the institution.

CONCLUSION

      As discussed in great detail throughout this report, although both have valuable components, neither the liberal arts and sciences college model nor the comprehensive university model is appropriate for the College of Charleston as it enters the new millennium. The core values and culture of the College, the institution's finances and facilities, the political and economic climate, the current and projected social, demographic and educational environment, the competitive position of the institution, and the programs and people of the College all point to a different model and a different vision for our two hundred and thirty year old institution of higher learning. Accordingly, the College of Charleston should create a new, hybrid model for itself, which incorporates the best features of the liberal arts and sciences college and the comprehensive university.

      The call for a hybrid model reflects the belief that the College does not need to transform itself into a different type of institution than it currently is. Instead, it appears that the College should focus its efforts and its resources on finding ways to do what it does, only better. The College is in an enviable position, both fiscally and educationally, and, therefore, change purely for the sake of change would make little sense. Conversely, self-satisfaction and complacency in today's rapidly changing higher education environment would be foolhardy. The College should follow a path of self-improvement, not transformation and should adopt a model that builds upon those strengths of the institution, which have enabled the College of Charleston to achieve its current recognized status as an institution of high quality and academic excellence.

      Borrowing the best in both form and function from these two traditional models, the College of Charleston should envision itself as the "Nation's Premier 'Public Liberal Arts and Sciences University' for the 21st Century." The hallmark of the education provided by this institution should be exemplary teaching by a faculty of teacher-scholars who engage the students through exceptional instruction and collaborative scholarship. At the institution's historic downtown campus, the College of Charleston will provide in high quality facilities an outstanding liberal arts and sciences residential education that is designed to prepare a diverse student body to be contributing and productive members of society. Additionally, consistent with the "university" component of its name, as a Public Liberal Arts and Sciences University, the College will maintain a limited number of graduate programs that are both cost effective and meet demonstrable community and state needs. Likewise, to the extent that there is sufficient community demand, the College may offer courses and programs at sites other than its downtown campus; however, the programs and courses at these alternate sites will at all times maintain the same academic standards and integrity as the main campus.

      This vision of the College of Charleston as the nation's premier Public Liberal Arts and Sciences University for the 21st Century is both bold and attainable. Such a vision draws upon the many strengths of the College and its people and represents a wonderful opportunity and exciting challenge for our institution as it enters the new millennium.