Editorial: Big problems in PPS

A February 2002 external review of the Sanford Institute of Public Policy found that the department had too many professors of the practice, that its research and teaching are not well integrated and that its undergraduate curriculum's core courses are unrelated to upper-level courses.

Moreover, the review insinuated that the reason for the popularity of the public policy studies major is because the classes are easy and the grading is generous and that undergraduates feel the major lacks intellectual rigor. Overall, the external review's findings highlight serious challenges with which the institute must deal.

Sanford's director, Bruce Jentleson, has dismissed much of the review's criticisms as misunderstandings. However, such an overwhelmingly negative review cannot be the result solely of numerous misunderstandings. Something is obviously wrong with public policy.

Currently, the public policy major lacks a core focus and is primarily an amalgamation of economics, political science and sociology, but with less content and difficulty than those other disciplines. Also, it is questionable whether public policy as a discipline looks at issues differently than these disciplines.

One indication of this lack of focus is the haphazard way in which students take classes, with many public policy majors postponing core courses until their senior year. And while many of the institute's upper-level course offerings are on interesting topics, the rigor of those courses and the manner in which they are taught are in serious question.

For example, the review noted that many professors of the practice simply use class time to relate personal anecdotes instead of teaching theory. This lack of theory in teaching is one reason why having such a large percentage of non-tenure track faculty is problematic. Although real-world experiences are valuable, focusing on exposure to real-world problems and building contacts in professional fields is not the mission of this University.

In the same way administrators have decided not to have a business major because that major is too pre-professional and lacks intellectual value, public policy must avoid becoming a pre-professional major. Sanford must transform itself into an institute that wrestles with large, important ideas instead of teaching students how to write memos.

One of the review's recommendations was to develop joint doctorate programs with other Arts and Sciences departments or professional schools at Duke. The lack of any program higher than a masters degree has limited the institute's research capabilities and the ability for the institute to compete with its peers. Sanford needs more graduate students for many reasons, including expanding its research and to improve the undergraduate curriculum by focusing more on theory and less on the vocational aspects of public policy. Fortunately, Sanford seems to be taking some small steps in the direction of increasing its graduate instruction.