Trustees' Residency Program at Hampden-Sydney College


Goal: to enrich the academic program in general, and the Honors, Rhetoric, Fine Arts, and Western Culture programs in particular, by facilitating residencies by accomplished scholars and practitioners

Justification:  Hampden-Sydney's limited resources are making it difficult to close the gap that separates us from aspirant institutions such as Kenyon, Franklin and Marshall, Colby and Washington and Lee.   The careful investment of funds in residencies by accomplished scholars and practitioners (e.g., visiting authors, scientists, historians, artists, ambassadors, etc.) would be an affordable way of associating ourselves with persons (and perhaps institutions--see below) of "star quality" while effectively enriching the education of our students.

Hampden-Sydney is likely to have modest resources available in the near
future to undertake new initiatives.  This proposal would position us to put the "finishing touches" on several existing programs while also providing benefits to the entire academic community.  Having accomplished writers in residence would add to our reputation as one of the top "writing" colleges in the country.  Students in the college's honors and senior fellows programs could be given an opportunity to work with scholars representing graduate programs.  Special one credit classes (honors, etc.) might be arranged with scholars who would be in residence for two or more weeks. Visiting scholars could be part of a "master lecturers" series within the Western Culture program.  Persons holding residency appointments would be available to visit classes and meet with students representing all of the disciplines on campus.

The goal should be to attract major figures to the college each year.
Visits by these persons should be highlighted by the admissions and
development staffs.  These visits could be used to cultivate relationships with graduate programs across the country.  Some scholars or practitioners might become regular visitors to the college, thus strengthening our ties to particular graduate programs or organizations.  We may wish to establish a formal relationship with a major institution (e.g., UVA or Duke) that will insure a constant stream of visiting scholars from those institutions (scholars might spend time at HSC while on sabbatical).   Such a relationship, if established, should be highlighted in the college's literature.

This is a proposal that can be expanded or constricted depending on the
budgetary situation, unlike the recommendation that the college institute a 3-3 load for faculty members in tenure track positions.  It also is a program that can benefit all departments.

This does not appear to be a time for new initiatives.  This is an
opportunity, however, to enrich the quality of existing programs.   Our goal should be to enhance our ability to attract strong students to the college. We need to be thinking of initiatives that will widen the eyes of 18 year-old men and their parents while protecting the integrity of the college and the academic program.   Opportunities to interact with major scholars and practitioners, and with major graduate institutions, may be one way to attract their attention while we raise funds to undertake even more ambitious projects.

Annual budget goal: $150,000  (Endowment goal: $3 million)


Additional Observations: The faculty has an opportunity to enlist the
trustees in backing a significant initiative that could elevate the
visibility and reputation of the college.  A significant investment of funds is not needed to assist students in developing strong speaking skills and to heighten student interest in international affairs--the faculty can do a great deal to advance these objectives right now if we have the "will" and desire to do these things.  The QEP should be reserved for something significant that will benefit our students and get us back in the "race" with schools like Kenyon, Franklin and Marshall, and Colby.  Let me add that I am disappointed that we do not have a proposal from the science faculty--I would recommend that the QEP committee consider drafting its own science proposal for the faculty to debate.