Volume 67, Issue 4  

Yeshiva’s Recent Middle States
Accreditation Praises, but Exposes Heavy Criticism

by Kevin Cyrulnik

The renowned Middle States Association of Colleges and Schools, whose commissions evaluate universities and schools nationwide every ten years, recently issued a comprehensive report declaring Yeshiva a “special and abundantly rich nature[d] University.”  After observing Yeshiva’s students, faculty, and staff for a 3-day period, the team ultimately praised the University and its ideals.  Underlying the acclaim, however, they criticized the administration for its “penurious approach to the funding of the University’s undergraduate programs,” attributing virtually all culpability to Yeshiva’s Vice President for Business Affairs.

The Middle States team singled out Yeshiva’s mission and goals as among the most noteworthy of its many qualities.  Describing Yeshiva in a similar fashion to the way it presents itself – “the oldest and most comprehensive educational institution under Jewish auspices in America…[seeking to educate] students who serve the Jewish community and society at large” – they noted that Yeshiva works arduously to accomplish this objective and has, thus far, succeeded in educating future leaders. 

The recent addition of the Honors Program, in their estimation, has further enhanced Yeshiva’s appeal to its diversified students.  According to the report, it provides an extensive selection of desirable courses and affords students a high class, Ivy League-like, education.  Overall, the Program has demonstrated Yeshiva’s ability to offer unique opportunities for its highly motivated student body.

The team spent much space divulging their opinions regarding Yeshiva’s “strong, hard-working group of teacher-scholars,” as well as the “vibrant and energetic [students] who exhibit great appreciation for intellectual activity and spiritual development.”  They recall many instances in which faculty seem to go above and beyond the call of duty, with the goal of enriching the academic and co-curricular life for the students.  Concurrently, the students “appear to be intellectually hungry” and very often maintain excellent relationships with their teachers.  

Unfortunately, the Middle States team went on to heavily criticize Yeshiva, revealing that many of Yeshiva’s positive qualities are tainted by a plethora of problems, all related to the “excessive caution” with which “the resources of the University are managed.”  The report stated that the root of the problem lies in “the lack of academic primacy in most decision making, as well as the lack of transparency in these processes.  The issues run deeper than simply a matter of communication.”  

One high-ranking Yeshiva administrator summed up the report: “The [Middle States team] concluded that while Yeshiva has an admirable and worthwhile mission to maintain, it seems as though the money is driving the mission, whereas, in reality, it should be the opposite – the mission diving the money.” 

Dr. Sheldon R. Gellman, Dean of Wurzweiler School of Social Work and Yeshiva’s Associate Vice President for Academic Affairs, led the committee in charge of preparing for the rigorous Middle States evaluation.  (An institution like Yeshiva typically needs two years to review and assess itself before the Middle States team arrives.)  Gellman designated more than 75 people for his team, including faculty, administrators, and students. 

Gellman further explained the problem that the Middle States team exposed.  “Certain things (to some people) are of higher concern than academics,” he said. “Some people think that other things are more important.”  These people, he maintained, often times even went so far as extracting “funds from the academic divisions to pay for other things – that’s the reality.”

To compound the problem, the team purported that they chose to focus on this particular issue because of Yeshiva’s “significant financial strength.”  Over the last five years, Yeshiva’s endowment has grown, a development that only one other university throughout the entire country maintains.  The team concluded, however, that the excessive financial caution “has unnecessarily limited the quality of undergraduate academic programs.”  For example, whereas the Honors Program and teacher dedication at Yeshiva are both admirable, they explained, these academic resources have been severely limited by the lack of an appropriate-sized staff.  

Included within the pages of the exhaustive report, the team suggests alternatives for and solutions to current problematic areas.  Currently, almost all revenues and gains from Yeshiva’s invested funds are consistently reinvested each year. Middle States recommends that Yeshiva consider changing this policy to allocate a larger percentage of surplus-invested funds to the annual budget.  It appears that this shift in fiscal prudence “would permit the steady allocation of some $15 to $20 million in additional resources to the budget each year without diminishing the corpus of the surplus investment fund.”

Other complaints, geared specifically toward the Vice President for Business Affairs, included the team’s emphasis that “there seems to be plenty of funding available both for facilities and for the staffing needed to maintain them.  The salaries and workloads of the undergraduate faculty…are incommensurate with those of their peers at liberal arts colleges…and reflect a penurious approach to the funding of the University’s undergraduate programs that is at odds with stated priorities.”  The man to blame for the aforementioned deficiencies, in the team’s opinion, is the Vice President for Business Affairs, who appears to be the “sole decision maker” in most support activities. 

The team repeatedly urges Yeshiva to consider the proposed solution to the problems that plague the university: Yeshiva’s academic leadership must be involved in the establishment and review of University-wide fiscal policies.  It certainly should not be left to one man to decide for the entire University, they said. 

This criticism notwithstanding, the report acknowledged that Yeshiva has succeeded in mending many of the problems raised in the last Middles States report, which was issued in 1991.  They understand that this is not a one-day process and concede that Yeshiva does not have to solve every problem raised.

Gellman made it clear that Yeshiva does not view this report as an attack.  He explained that Yeshiva undergoes evaluation “for the purpose of learning what we are doing and how we could do it better – we aim to learn and improve.”  Case in point, Gellman noted that the University has initiated a resolution to the Student Affairs problem that plagued it last spring with the expelled students; one of the changes that has already been instituted is the separation of discipline from counseling.  Overall, Gellman concluded that Yeshiva has and will continue to utilize and incorporate the advice given to them by the Middle States Accreditation team.

What do you think? Click here to send a letter to the editors.
All content is copyright © Yeshiva University Commentator.