Dean’s Committees on the Future of the Kennedy School Issue Final Reports and Recommendations

A YEAR-LONG COMPREHENSIVE REVIEW of the school’s programs and processes yielded a number of recommendations that include organizing the school into academic areas, creating a more focused MPP program curriculum, and setting more defined research goals. Four committees appointed by Dean David Ellwood last year assessed the school’s research, teaching programs, academic organization, and financial health. In June, the committees submitted their reports.

The Teaching Programs Committee, directed by Suzanne Cooper and chaired by David Gergen, Alex Keyssar, and Robert Lawrence, made three major recommendations concerning new market opportunities for the school’s degree programs. The committee suggested creating smaller, in-depth concentrations within the MPP program. The proposed program would cut the core curriculum in half, allowing students to delve more deeply into specific areas of policy interest.

The committee also recommended strengthening the existing MPP/MBA concurrent degree program by setting more formal course requirements and creating a joint curriculum with the business school. Finally, the committee recommended that the school continue to explore ways in which it can work with the Faculty of Arts and Science to develop a specific curriculum for Harvard undergraduates. Given the variety of courses at the Kennedy School, it recommended that the school match up Kennedy School faculty available to teach undergraduates with courses they are interested in taking.

The Academic Organization Committee, cochaired by Stephen Walt and Frederick Schauer, was charged with analyzing the effectiveness of the school’s existing academic structure. In order to focus and support the efforts of the school’s 140 faculty members, the committee recommended the creation of five divisions. After considerable discussion with the faculty, Dean Ellwood chose to adopt a modified version of the committee’s recommendation. He has appointed five area chairs to help him lead the school by ensuring a coherent set of courses, strategic hiring, support for faculty (especially junior faculty), and encouraging outstanding and influential scholarship in five critical areas. The new areas and their chairs are International Relations, Science, and Security (Ash Carter); Democratic Institutions and Politics (Alex Keyssar); Social Policy (Jeff Liebman); Markets and Methods (Dani Rodrik); and Management and Leadership (Mary Jo Bane).

The Research Committee, chaired by Dani Rodrik, Julie Wilson, and William Clark, looked at the effectiveness of the school’s research activity and success in producing research published by external editors and reviewers. Between 2001 and 2003 according to Wilson, faculty produced an impressive 500 published works per year.

The committee made three primary recommendations. First, the committee recommended that the school clarify the types of research and publications it wants and should monitor progress toward these goals. The school should also strengthen its research capacities by clarifying research income and expenditures; time allocated to research; efforts in mentoring junior faculty and lecturers; the role of research affiliates, centers, and the new designated areas in supporting research; and the process for identifying priority research needs and integrating those priorities into the hiring process. Finally, the committee recommended creating a research committee to help implement the recommendations and report annually to the faculty on the school’s progress.

The Budget and Performance Measurement Committee, cochaired by Mary Jo Bane and Linda Bilmes, was charged with helping to broaden the understanding of the school’s financial position and its transparency in financial reporting. The committee did not offer specific recommendations but “observations” of the school’s fiscal realities.

Among the observations were that the school should increase its effort to understand the full costs of all projects and its capacity for increasing revenue, requiring that all costs be covered in the short and long term.

According to Bane, a consultant hired by the committee could not identify areas for dramatic savings at the school when compared with the expenditures at peer institutions. Bane called the Kennedy School “an extraordinarily complex entity for its $100 million” annual budget, with multiple educational programs, research programs, and engagement activities.

With the committee reports complete, the Dean’s Office and the Faculty Steering Committee will begin evaluating the recommendations and developing respective implementation plans. The process, according to Ellwood, has provided the school with an invaluable opportunity to reassess its programs and procedures.

“The Kennedy School is dedicated to training skilled leaders and to developing solutions to some of the world’s most pressing problems,” added Ellwood. “To continue to deliver on its mission and meet these challenges, the Kennedy School must ensure it remains relevant and responsive to the changing global landscape.”