INTRODUCTION
foreword certification table of contents table of figures summary data sheet steering committee acknowledgements abstract	EVOLUTION AND ENGAGEMENT A Self-Study in Preparation for an Accreditation Review by the Western Association of Schools and Colleges October, 2000
•	FOREWORD
<top of page	This Self-Study Report provides a look at our campus — its people, its history, its programs and its promise for the future. People are our most important resource at Cal Poly Pomona. We are a diverse community of faculty, staff and administrators who are committed to providing students with high quality education, ensuring that they are well prepared for the work world and for graduate studies and that they have the tools necessary to become successful members and leaders of our society. This commitment has been translated many times into reality: many of our graduates enjoy rewarding academic and professional careers that began here at Cal Poly Pomona. Many of our programs are nationally distinguished, thanks to the dedication of the faculty, staff, administrators and students. Our academics are rigorous, but there’s more than theory at this university. Our graduates not only have learned academic theory, but also know how to put it into practice. This practical learn-by-doing approach to education has been a distinguishing hallmark of Cal Poly Pomona since its inception. It’s something we’re proud of and to which we remain committed. Our commitment to students and their future led us to undertake this experimental self-study. We decided to accept the challenge and employ the self-study as a vehicle for self-reflection and active engagement of the campus community in discussions about the educational process and the cultural, social and political life of the campus. This University has been undergoing "evolution" over the last decade and, understandably, we do not have a consensus about every detail in our history, nor have we reached complete agreement about every finding or recommendation proposed in this self-study. As a community that has shown tremendous loyalty to this institution, we plan to continue our "engagement" in these discussions. In the spirit of the new accreditation process, we have engaged with the WASC Extended Pre-visit Team in a constructive dialogue that helped us in finalizing the self-study and framing questions and issues to focus on during the October accreditation re-affirmation visit. I look forward to continuing this dialogue with the visiting team, our process of self-reflection, and the discussions within our community for the benefit of our students, the campus, the CSU, and higher education across the State and the Nation. Signed, Bob H. Suzuki President August 2000
	CERTIFICATION
<top of page	To: Accrediting Commission for Senior Colleges and Universities Western Association of Schools and Colleges From: California State Polytechnic University, Pomona 3801 West Temple Avenue Pomona, CA 91768 This Self-Study report is submitted for the purpose of assisting in the determination of whether this institution should have its accreditation reaffirmed by the Accrediting Commission. I certify that there was broad participation by the campus community. While consensus was not reached about every detail in the report or about every finding or recommendation, I believe our WASC Steering Committee tried their best to have the report accurately reflect the nature and substance of the institution to the degree that was possible given the process followed. Signed, Bob H. Suzuki President August 2000
	TABLE OF CONTENTS
<top of page	Table of Contents
	TABLE OF FIGURES
<top of page	Table of Figures
	SUMMARY DATA SHEET
<top of page	Summary Data Sheet
	STEERING COMMITTEE
<top of page	WASC Self-Study Steering Committee
	ABSTRACT
<top of page	The thematic self-study "Cal Poly Pomona: Evolution and Engagement" is the product of two years’ research by a committee organized by the Division of Academic Affairs of California State Polytechnic University Pomona. The overall theme of the study was the process of change during the past decade, inspired by comments from the previous WASC review of 1990. Specific themes arose from the areas of greatest cogency and urgency as articulated by campus respondents: institutional culture (Theme One), teaching and learning (Two), management and enhancement of resources (Three), and new directions (Four). Theme one addresses the context, climate, and general purposes of the university. Two assesses the most significant educational programs and issues identified in focus groups. Three discusses the institutional capacity for supporting and improving our educational offerings. Four sets its sights on the growth of new programs and the development of a coherent, visionary future direction for the university. These themes resonate to the sense and spirit of the four new WASC standards, and reflect the documentary research instigated by the existing nine standards (contained in Appendix A9). Data for the self-study was derived from focus group and survey research, extensive interviewing and meeting attendance, and the collection and analysis of documents. The most cogent action items are in the general fields of community, coordination, planning, and vision. Each item is elaborated in terms of specific recommendations and suggestions. The overall procedures the Committee would like to see the university establish are continuous self-study and respectful communication, as the general processes through which we can achieve our educational goals. This report is presented in two volumes, the self-study narrative itself (Volume I) and the portfolio of exhibits (Volume II). An Executive Summary/Reader’s Guide is published separately for those who wish a practical overview of the entire study and a list of points or programs covered in particular chapters. Additional support documents are furnished to visitors to the university in the Team Room and/or online. The organization and approaches of the report profited from interaction with the WASC Extended Preliminary Visit Team in July 2000. To focus and streamline the discussion, we have placed parenthetical and referential material in Endnotes organized by chapter, compiled at the end of Chapter X. All of the works cited are listed in Chapter X, as well. An extensive list of annexes and appendices is located there and in the Table of Contents of Volume II.
	ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
<top of page	The Coordinator would like to acknowledge the unflagging support and mammoth contributions of all the writers and researchers involved in this study, especially Marisol Arredondo, Vinita Dhingra, David Fite, Steven Frieze, William Girouard, Bruce Hillam, Deborah Meadows, Ali Mossaver-Rahmani, Barbara Shabell, Shanthi Srinivas, John Trei, Laraine Turk, and Noel Vernon, who have worked hard right by my side from beginning to end, whether they were compensated or not. The principal compensation and satisfaction I have derived from leading this effort has been the privilege of sharing it with such companions. My friends and colleagues Donna Albro, Howard Jian, James Manley, Frank Torres, Gwen Urey, and Ana-Maria Whitaker pitched in whenever they were needed and made up for the periods when they were not ‘on’ the project with an overflow of enthusiasm and ideas when they were. One of the student Committee members, Pam Adams, contributed to the project at a high level of professionalism, and it was not because she was promised a leading role in our video. Our ALO, Elhami Ibrahim, was the best of all possible collaborators on this self-study. To his predecessor, Patricia Hopkins, who briefly served the institution as ALO, and to Peter Dual, former Vice President of Academic Affairs, I owe thanks for bringing me into this interesting educational experience and helping me get started. I wish to thank President Bob Suzuki for selecting me as Coordinator, despite the fact that we do not always agree on institutional political matters, sometimes publicly. Our area of outstanding agreement is of course our love for Cal Poly Pomona and for higher education, so I have taken my appointment as an acknowledgement of that common ground. It was a pleasure to work with Richard Santillan and Marv Klein, the two interim VPs associated with the project. Glenda Brock, Lucy Fernandez and all the Academic Affairs staff gave unselfishly of their time. The consultants listed in Annex A5, individuals on and off campus and many offices, committees, and other organizations, are too numerous for me to thank by name here. I am nonetheless very grateful for all their support and contributions, especially those groups with whom we met regularly, such as the ASI Executive Board, GE Committee and Steering Committee of the Academic Senate, Deans Action Council, Cabinet, University Council of Chairs, and several others. Darcy Waddingham, the fourth and final project assistant, wore many hats and switched them effortlessly when appropriate — student, staff representative, writer, researcher, secretary. Without Darcy, we would have run into any number of icebergs while thinking we were smart. Many thanks to Lino Barro, Isabel Sam, and the other members of IRP staff who helped us on top of their normal duties. To the ‘background’ Committee, Nancy Kropf, Harold Schleifer, Kathleen Street, and others, I also owe a debt of gratitude for being on call at all times. Our friends in ITAC responsible for the creation of our beautiful web site, Jerry Lerma, Sam Hay and John Ringloff, were fun and easy to work with, in addition to being brilliant. The major portion of credit for this self-study is due to the community of the university at large — the staff, students, faculty, administrators, some of whom had never heard of WASC in 1998, who emerged from their own serious obligations to talk to us, read what we’d written, provide information, suggest revisions, and encourage us. We have never ceased to be amazed by the quality and energy of the people who study and work here. Although various individuals or groups have expressed discontent with style or content of some of the self-study as it has evolved, no one has ever attempted to use any method other than argumentation and persuasion to make us change it. We have not tried to please everyone or anyone in particular. In fact, I’m sure every reader will still find something objectionable herein. And that was our point: to get a good discussion going. Dorothy D. Wills, Ph.D. Coordinator, WASC Self-Study Professor of Anthropology Cal Poly Pomona
	<top of page