We believe that ENEP is a unique and important program for students interested in the field of energy and environmental policy. We believe ENEP has been eminently successful in educating these students and providing them with a rich array of research and classroom experiences. We believe that the ENEP core faculty are an exceptionally dedicated, hard-working, well-respected, and student-centered group of faculty. We believe ENEP has attracted a top tier cadre of students with an extensive international flavor, thereby creating an intellectual environment and culture that is rich and rewarding. Furthermore, the ENEP faculty (through CEEP) have attracted an extensive amount of funding for sponsored projects and research. Therefore, we recommend that ENEP should be granted permanent status at the university.

We believe CEEP plays an integral role in the success of ENEP and must be allowed to participate in ENEP’s continued development and growth. We believe that the details of CEEP’s participation are a matter of college policy that must be addressed through consultation among ENEP core faculty, CEEP, and the Dean. Therefore, we recommend that the ENEP Program Director, the CEEP Director, and the Dean should formulate a plan that recognizes the roles for CEEP in ENEP administration and development.

We believe that having ENEP report through the SUAPP creates inefficiencies and communication problems, especially on some student affairs, which detrimentally affect faculty and student morale and constrain ENEP from further development. We believe ENEP must be allowed to conduct its day-to-day operations, especially on activities related to admissions, student advisement, academic program policy, orientation, honors and awards, and program development. Thus, we recommend that the ENEP Program Director should report directly to the Dean of CHEP or, in the event that the Dean wishes to delegate this responsibility, that the ENEP Program Director should report directly to the director of CEEP on matters related to day-to-day administration of the ENEP program and support budget.

1. PROGRAM GOALS AND CURRICULUM

1.1. Evaluating an Interdisciplinary Program

The modern university is organized in terms of discipline-based teaching and research that advance the frontier in a particular area of scholarship by ever-growing specialization. The sociology of science shows that such a knowledge strategy, which emphasizes depth over breadth, is well suited to the advance of a particular frontier in a specialty within a discipline. Based on this understanding, universities have been able to establish the necessary criteria for administering such academic units, including rules for the tenure and promotion of faculty members.

For nearly half a century, it has become increasingly apparent that if the university is to play an essential role in society, the above knowledge strategy must be complemented by another one. The understanding of many contemporary issues and problems requires the involvement of several disciplines, each contributing highly specialized knowledge. This knowledge strategy seeks to synthesize these contributions, with the difference that no scientific method has been developed to accomplish this. The sociology of science has developed no adequate models for these processes. The result is that such efforts depend on a significant component of intellectual entrepreneurship to create an adequate “intellectual map” of such issues or problems, including the way they are embedded in a larger context. Successful efforts generally related to significant issues and problems have been institutionalized within the university as interdisciplinary programs, centers or institutes. Their dependence on traditional departments has been assured by cross-appointing faculty members to these interdisciplinary academic units, but most universities have found it very difficult to develop adequate administrative procedures that recognize that this complementary knowledge strategy, which emphasizes breadth over depth, has its own standards of intellectual rigor and excellence. Typically there is no well-developed portfolio of journals and international conferences, making comparison-based evaluations difficult. It ought to come as no surprise, therefore, that administrative procedures for such academic units, including criteria for promotion and tenure of cross-appointed faculty members, are not nearly as well established as for discipline-based units. In addition, no universal and satisfactory administrative criteria have been developed for assessing the performance of faculty members who in essence serve two academic masters. The reporting relationships of the heads of interdisciplinary academic units generally attempt avoiding the introduction of a third academic master by placing such units in parallel with discipline-based units. Such arrangements are particularly important in a climate of ongoing budget reductions, where a cross-appointment may be regarded by a home tenure unit as the partial loss of a faculty resource for which it is inadequately compensated.

Before describing the findings of our academic review of the ENEP program, the committee wishes to draw to the attention of the university administration its recognition of the above generic problems, which we have all encountered through our participation in and evaluation of interdisciplinary academic units outside of the University of Delaware. Our very high evaluation of the ENEP program is in part the result of the relative absence of the kinds of frictions that can emerge because interdisciplinary academic units are without a doubt an alternative “intellectual culture” typically uncomfortably nested in the much larger discipline-based “intellectual culture”.

1.2. Program Goals

Environment and energy policy rank among the most interdisciplinary issues of our age, thereby constituting a difficult academic challenge to the creation of adequate interdisciplinary academic units. At the same time, it is hard to overstate the strategic importance of such policies. According to the first law of thermodynamics, each and every activity that helps to constitute the way of life of a society must temporarily borrow all inputs of matter and energy from the biosphere (which prepares solar radiation for service) because it can neither create nor destroy these inputs. As a result, the most competitive option for dealing with our dependence on the biosphere is to promote the highest possible material efficiency by avoiding the production of pollutants as much as possible, since these are products we are unable to sell. In other words, there is a convergence between economic competitiveness and making our ways of life more sustainable. A similar convergence occurs in the case of energy. For example, a great deal of effort has gone into ensuring that the production and distribution of electricity are highly efficient and economic, but proportionately much less effort has gone into ensuring that energy end-use is equally efficient. Hence, one of the most competitive energy strategies is based on increasing energy end-use efficiency, thereby negatively producing electricity (frequently for half the cost), which at the same time, greatly reduces the burden imposed on the biosphere.

The ENEP program has built a reputation for developing policies to take full advantage of these opportunities. Several years ago, when one of the committee members conducted a major research program into the state-of-the-art of environmental and energy policy based on the above preventive approaches, the research output of the CEEP figured prominently in the database, and among the university-based centers competed with the very best. This level of productivity and excellence is a tribute to the strong positive synergy that exists between the CEEP and the ENEP program. This is further confirmed by one of the committee members, who spent two full days prior to the beginning of the academic review meeting two groups of students, to discuss energy policy with one group, and with the other the frontier in our understanding of the interactions between science, technology, society and the biosphere. In addition to these two meetings, lasting approximately three hours each, there were several meetings with one or two students. This same committee member would rate these students as among the best prepared that he has encountered. It can reasonably be expected that after graduation, they will enjoy highly successful careers in policy analysis, planning and administration in the public, private and non-profit sectors. This is further confirmed by the accomplishments of the graduates of the program during its probationary period. The program goals that have created this level of success can be relied upon to continue to do so in the future.

The program goals can be expected to guide the development of the CEEP research portfolio by addressing key issues on the frontiers of environmental and energy policies. In the coming decades, these areas will continue to present many challenges for researchers.

1.3. Curriculum

At the center of the curriculum for the master’s degree of the ENEP program, we find two seminar courses that develop the “intellectual maps” for energy policy and administration and for environmental policy and administration. Two methodology courses tailored to each student=s background, two additional courses building further bridges to relevant disciplines, and early participation in research add up to a rigorous and demanding first year of the masters program. It is the general platform on which masters students develop one of five areas of concentration during the second year in conjunction with original research leading to the preparation of an analytical paper or thesis.

The doctoral curriculum has a similar well-thought-out structure but on a more advanced level, with theory-oriented seminars on technology, environment and society, and international perspectives on energy and environmental policy. Once again, the establishment of a strong link with research by means of research assistantships is an essential component in the program. The comprehensive examination process appears to be working very well B a major accomplishment in any highly interdisciplinary program.

Several factors testify to the excellence of the curriculum. First, in about three-quarters of the cases the research assistantships overlap with the research requirements for completing an analytical paper or thesis. This helps to unify theory and practice. Second, a rigorous and demanding program can be completed by most students within or very close to the prescribed time period, which in comparison to many other interdisciplinary programs, is high praise indeed. Third, the high level of motivation and morale that is clearly evident in the student body further testifies to the fact that the relations between faculty and students, primarily structured through the program goals and curriculum, are working exceedingly well. Fourth, the committee could not find any evidence of students having significant academic concerns of any kind. It appears that early diagnosis and the safety-valve constituted by an ombudsperson are clearing away any difficulties before they begin to impair the progress of a student. Once again, in a highly interdisciplinary program, this is far from a trivial achievement.

1.4. The Overall ENEP Program

The University of Delaware is to be congratulated on having created a clear winner in the field of environment and energy policy. The CEEP-sponsored ENEP program ranks among the three best combined graduate programs in energy and environmental policy with which the committee is familiar. Program goals are of increasing strategic importance for any modern society, and the demand for graduates is likely to remain high in the future. During the probationary period, these goals have demonstrated their ability to design and evolve an excellent curriculum and research portfolio, with a very high level of synergy between them. The committee found only one matter that could potentially interfere with the ongoing success of the ENEP program, namely, the highly unusual administrative structure involving three, rather than two, academic masters. We recommend that the Dean of the college make an internal administrative adjustment analogous to the usual structure and reporting relations for interdisciplinary programs. We wish to point out that the ERG program at Berkeley and the CEES program at Boston University (two of the principal competitors) are governed in this manner. The committee wishes to note that at both these universities a centre like CEEP handles academic administration. As a committee, we feel that this administrative adjustment is absolutely essential for the ongoing health and vitality of the program in general and for the morale of faculty and students in particular. The only difficulties we have been able to discern are related to this somewhat unusual administrative structure.

2. FACULTY

Six people comprise the graduate faculty in the ENEP Program: Richard Sylves, John Byrne, Paul Durbin, William Ritter, Yda Schrueder, and Young-Doo Wang. While just two of these are available for full-time commitment to the program and student supervision (Byrne and Wang), two other faculty members are available half-time (Sylves and Schreuder) while two others are available 15% of the time (Durbin and Ritter). Nevertheless, evidence indicates that the available faculty commitment to the program has resulted in a disproportionately high level of outstanding research opportunities for graduate students, along with high quality instruction and an appropriate level of graduate student supervision. It may be desirable to increase the diversity of faculty availability for the latter purpose, given the large number of high quality students in the ENEP program and the additional outstanding core faculty beyond the six most committed to ENEP. While the program is to be commended for the high overall quality of its faculty, greater use of a wider range of faculty would be mutually beneficial for student and faculty alike. We therefore strongly support the ongoing efforts of the directors of ENEP and CEEP in this area.

The graduate faculty has strong research strengths in several areas of energy and environmental policy and are widely published, with excellent reputations nationwide and in some cases internationally. These areas include the socioeconomic dimensions of global climate change, renewable energy and energy efficiency, environmental justice, and sustainable development (Byrne, Wang, and Schreuder), the nuclear power controversy (Byrne and Sylves), non-point water pollution control (Ritter), water conservation (Wang and Byrne), natural hazards and disaster planning and management (Sylves), and environmental ethics (Durbin).

The morale and collegiality of the graduate faculty, as observed by the external review team, are very high. This is confirmed by the successful working relationships and research collaboration that have been maintained by the graduate faculty, in some cases for well over a decade. The high morale and collegiality appear to be having a very positive influence on the graduate students. Along with the high level of energy and enthusiasm maintained by some of the faculty, these traits are contagious to many of the students in the ENEP program.

3. STUDENTS

This section addresses the students of ENEP. The external review committee met with students individually and as a group, the latter occurring with 12 ENEP students and 3 UAPP students on Monday, May 13, 2002.

In its interviews with students, faculty, and administrators, the external review committee paid particular attention to the following three areas: (1) admission standards and quality of students; (2) overall administration of the program as it relates to the students; and, (3) morale and perceptions of the students. These areas are addressed below.

3.1. Admission standards and quality of students

The ENEP program currently has 24 students (2001-02 academic year). Of these, 11 are Ph.D. students and 13 are Master’s students. These students are truly an amalgam of nationalities (about 50% are international), which adds to the unique international flavor of ENEP.

The external review committee reviewed data provided by ENEP on student admissions processes and requirements. The data suggest that the ENEP students are well prepared. Mean GRE scores are 555 and 661 for verbal and math, respectively. Only 10-15% of applicants are admitted to the Master’s program, out of a pool of 60-80 applicants. For the Ph.D. program, admissions are even more selective, as only 5% of applicants are admitted out of a pool of 50-60. All core ENEP faculty are involved in the admissions process, which involves writing samples and on-campus interviews when possible.

The overall work produced by students is quite high. The external review committee examined theses, dissertations, and analytical papers prepared by the students and found them to be of exceptional quality. Student work from ENEP has received statewide, national, and even international acclaim.

Although students admitted to the program are of very high quality, the faculty demonstrated some concern that the administrative structure of ENEP and its relationship with SUAPP had in some instances prevented ENEP from attracting some truly exceptional candidates. The concern was centered on delays in sending out acceptance letters and scholarship notification to these top students, who are also being courted by other top programs. To maintain excellence, ENEP must be allowed to compete with these other schools by meeting the administrative demands required at top-tier graduate programs.

3.2. Overall administration of the program as it relates to the students

Most students interviewed understood the overall mission of ENEP, its administrative structure, and its program requirements. For administrative issues, students relied heavily on Ms. Terri Brower for assistance. Students did express concern regarding the relationship between ENEP and SUAPP. Some students indicated that although ENEP staff were extremely helpful, it was often difficult to get paperwork conducted in a timely fashion through SUAPP. For example, more than a few students said that SUAPP had lost paperwork or had forgotten to process important forms for the students. In one case, a student could not be paid for several months, and that was blamed on the SUAPP administration.

Students seemed to understand their role in research at ENEP. Each year students receive a list of potential research projects from faculty. Students choose the project(s) on which they wish to work. Most funded students we interviewed were working on more than one project on their own volition. These students expressed a desire to engage in more than one area of their field to gain experience and to try out different things.

The requirements for completion of the program are reasonable and the students understand these requirements. The two Ph.D students that have been through ENEP have done so in a timely fashion. Master’s students are also graduating on time. Some students admitted that their research projects constituted “a lot of work,” but they did not indicate that this was preventing them from completing their academic requirements. In fact, in about three-quarters of the cases the students were using their research assistantships as the basis for their theses, analytical papers, or dissertations. It should be noted that in one case the loss of a CEEP staff member required an exasperated student to put in extra hours of work (40 hours per week for several weeks) to complete the work that was not completed by the staff member. Such exceptions must be continually monitored and addressed by ENEP.

3.3. Morale of the students

The morale of the students that the external review committee interviewed was very high. Students seemed to enjoy the program and believed it to be rewarding intellectually and socially. Any discontent from the students was related to administrative issues (see above).

Importantly, there seemed to be an incredible esprit de corps among the students, who engage each other in academic and social outlets. The development of an ENEP Student Association (registered officially with the university) adds to this camaraderie. The student association supports a thesis writing support group, on-campus speakers, and social activities.

Finally, CEEP has identified an ombudsman that provides students an opportunity to discuss problems, their work, or any related program issues with a neutral party. (Currently, the ombudsman position is open due to the departure of the CEEP staff member responsible for this duty. It is expected that a new CEEP ombudsman will be identified for the 2002-03 academic year). This position represents a neutral and effective voice to address student concerns. We believe the ombudsman position is an important position and the availability of his/her services must be clearly communicated to all graduate students in ENEP. Further, the position must represent a neutral and strong voice as advocate for the students. The ombudsman can assist in resolving the conflicts that can arise in programs that integrate a highly intense research environment with course and thesis work.

4. PROGRAM PRODUCTIVITY

Since its inception in 1998, the ENEP core faculty have strived to make the program one of the most productive graduate programs of its kind in the United States, and indeed the world. This Program Productivity is evident from such measures as 1) faculty productivity, 2) program productivity as indicated by the graduation numbers, attrition, time to degree, enrollment trends, 3) student productivity as indicated by publications, presentations at local/state/national/ international meetings and awards, and 4) the appropriateness of the placement of the graduates of the program. The following subsections explain each category separately. The information contained in each section was obtained from published sources, as well as meetings that the review committee held with faculty and graduate students.

4.1. Faculty Productivity

The current six members of the core faculty each have substantial research, teaching and service experience in the field of energy and environmental policy. Their productivity, as evidenced by the number of masters and doctoral students they supervise, publications in the form of books, book chapters, refereed journal publications, and conference proceedings they publish, grants they generate, and professional services they provide in the form of serving on national and international committees, on an annual basis, is truly impressive. For instance, publication and research of the ENEP Program core faculty for the period 1998-2002 include 6 books, 32 refereed articles and book chapters, as well as 46 conference and proceeding papers. During the same period, through the Center for Energy and Environmental Policy (CEEP), the faculty have generated 58 projects including 21 involving international issues, 13 with national sponsors and partners, and 24 which were designed to improve Delaware and the region's energy and environmental policies.

4.2. Program Productivity

To date, there have been 42 enrollments and 18 graduations (16 master's and 2 Ph.D.'s) from the ENEP program. The program has had 11 enrollments in the Ph.D. and 31 in the MEEP degree program. For the 2001-2002 academic year, a total of 24 students are enrolled in the program. Of these, 11 are Ph.D. and 13 are master's students. Of the 24 enrolled students, 19 receive financial support. The enrollment trends by year are presented in Table 1. The average time to complete the degree has been 2 years for MEEP and 4 years for Ph.D. The number of graduates by year is presented in Table 2. To the best knowledge of the review committee, there has been no attrition to date.

Table 1.

Enrollment Trends by year

Year	MEEP	Ph.D.
1996	0	1
1997	7	3
1998	9	0
1999	4	2
2000	4	2
2001	7	3

Note: Theses figures denote the number of students who started their graduate program. These include transferred students from the Urban Affairs Program. 1996 & 97 are also shown.

Table 2.

Number of Graduates by Year

Year	MEEP	Ph.D.
1999	5	0
2000	6	0
2001	5	2

Note: These figures include two Ph.D. students transferred from the Urban Affairs Program.

4.3. Student Productivity

One of the most important aspects, and indeed a key element in the success of the ENEP program, has been direct collaboration with CEEP. During 1998-2002, CEEP generated 69 research assistantships and approximately $2.5 million to support study in energy and environmental policy. Considering current students who are in their second or later years of study and all graduates, the dissertations of 7 out of 8 doctoral students, and 19 out of 25 MEEP students, were built from research collaboration with CEEP. Student participation in CEEP research has so far led to 17 published peer-review papers, two books and numerous presentations at national and international conferences including:

· International Association for Energy Economics

· U.S. Association for Energy Economics

· American Solar Energy Society

· National Science, Technology and Society Conference

· Air & Waste Management Association

· International Solar Energy Society

· UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (FCCC) Meeting

· International Solar City Conference

4.4. Career Placement

ENEP graduates have been extremely successful in securing employment in the energy and environment field. Their employers range from private consultancies to non-governmental organizations (in and beyond the U.S.), U.S. State and federal government agencies, and universities in the United States, Korea and Malaysia. Positions currently held by ENEP graduates include: a senior position in the Malaysian Government's Ministry of Telecommunications, Energy and Post; the first woman to hold an assistant professorship at the University of Seoul's Department of Public Administration; a planner for the Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission; a Research Associate in India's Center for Interdisciplinary Studies in Environment and Development; a Program Coordinator for the Clean Air Council; a Research Associate for the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy; a Program Associate for Winrock International; and a Program Manager in the U.S. EPA.

In the meetings that the review committee held with the graduate students, they all agreed that the program has been extremely helpful in providing information on jobs and finding internship opportunities for them.

5. ADEQUACY OF FINANCIAL SUPPORT

5.1. Number of Graduate Assistantships

In the four financial years of the operation of ENEP, a total of 71 graduate assistantships were offered (see Table 3). The level of remuneration provided to the graduate assistants is $23,000 per academic year ($11,000 for stipend and $12,000 for tuition) based on 2001-02 University of Delaware rates.

Table 3.

ENEP Gradate Student Funding by Year

Academic Year	Students Supported
1998-99	19
1999-00	17
2000-01	16
2001-02	19
TOTAL	71

5.2. Appropriateness of Extracurricular Workload

The extracurricular workload required of those students receiving graduate assistantships is set by the University of Delaware and involves the equivalent of 20 hours per week of research.[1] A key measure of the appropriateness of the extracurricular work performed by ENEP students is the number of publications generated that involve students and the number of analytical papers, theses, and dissertations derived from their assistantships. Considering current students who are in their second or later years of study and all graduates, the dissertations of 7 doctoral students (of a possible 8) were based on research assistantships with CEEP, while 19 MEEP students’ analytical papers and theses (of a possible 25) were built from research collaboration with CEEP.[2] Student participation in CEEP research led to 17 published peer-reviewed papers and two books in which students are authors/co-authors.

5.3. Adequacy of Extramural Funds

In the four financial years of the operation of the ENEP Program, student funding has totaled $1.5 million. Of the $1.5 million in ENEP student support from FY1998-99 to 2001-02, none was provided from earmarked institutional funds. $1.0 million (68.7% of total funding sources and 86% of the funding from University sources) was provided by CEEP from grants, contracts and other support raised by the Center. $72,000 (4.9%) was provided by the College of Human Services, Education and Public Policy or School of Urban Affairs and Public Policy. These funds were secured by ENEP students through competitions in which merit-determined selections were made. It is important to note that even this modest support did not include funds earmarked for the ENEP Program. $124,250 (8.5%) was provided from University-wide sources that were also based on student award competitions. Again, this modest support did not include funds specifically allocated for use by the ENEP Program. $263,000 (17.9%) came from foreign government sources and Fulbright and Muskie Fellowship competitions; these funds supported a number of CEEP’s international students (see Table 4 for a summary of extramural support raised by CEEP for ENEP).

Table 4.

Sources of ENEP Graduate Student Funding: 1998-2002

Source	Amount	Percent
CEEP	$1,008,750	68.7
School/College	$72,000	4.9
Other Units/University	$124,250	8.5
International Sources	$263,000	17.9
TOTAL	$1,468,000	100.0

Thus, ENEP currently operates without dedicated funds from University accounts. CEEP represents the only source of dedicated funds to support ENEP graduate students. Small contributions from University, College and School competitions are won by ENEP students, based on their merit complement CEEP’s commitment, but cannot be assumed to be available from one year to the next.

Through CEEP’s success in attracting funding, a high proportion of the program’s students have received funding (Table 5). The funding proportion ranges from 79.2% to 94.1%, for an average of 85.5% during the four years.

Table 5.

Proportion of Students Receiving Funding

Year	Enrolled Students	Graduate Assistants	Percent
1998-1999	22	19	86.4
1999-2000	20	17	85.0
2000-2001	17	16	94.1
2001-2002	24	19	79.2
AVERAGE	21	18	85.5

In addition to the $1.0 million in graduate student support, CEEP has also provided more than $266,000 in faculty and staff salary funding, research and equipment expenses, and overhead to support the ENEP Program.

CEEP’s capacity to generate support for the ENEP Program has been remarkable. ENEP students have been provided rich opportunities to pursue their dissertation, thesis and analytical paper research. We assess that the support from CEEP was the crucial factor that contributed to the successful operation of the ENEP program.

5.4. Adequacy of Intramural Funds

Earmarked University support for the ENEP Program occurs only in the form of core faculty salaries. Since the ENEP core faculty are drawn from 5 colleges, and most have primary appointments not in the College of Human Services, Education and Public Policy, it is not possible to determine exactly this figure. An approximation for core faculty salaries is $153,000 per year.[3]

The absence of intramural funds dedicated to ENEP graduate student support may be due to the probationary status of the Program. This would not be appropriate in the future. Some level of intramural, earmarked graduate student support that would be administered by CEEP (in order to ensure best use of total funds—intramural and extramural) would appear to be needed.

It is noted that CEEP currently has only one intramurally funded administrative staff position (the Center’s very capable Administrative Assistant) and no intramurally supported research staff, despite the fact that an average of 18 ENEP students working on 15 extramurally funded projects must be supervised each year. With the grant of permanent status, it would seem appropriate to increase intramural support of administrative and research staff in CEEP in order to strengthen academic research opportunities for the ENEP Program.

6. QUALITY OF FACILITIES

This section addresses the quality and adequacy of the facilities used for research, teaching, and administration at ENEP. The external review committee met with faculty, students, and staff in separate interviews and asked questions regarding the adequacy of ENEP and university facilities. There were no major issues raised regarding the quality of the facilities. All interviewees believed the resources (library, computer, office space, etc.) were good and were adequate for academic work. The external review committee believes the facilities are of good quality and access and have no recommendations on necessary improvements.

7. CONCLUSIONS

7.1 Most Commendable Aspects

The external committee cites the following commendable aspects of ENEP:

· Productivity of the program

· Morale

· High national and international recognition

· International diversity of students

7.2 Priority Staff Need

· The University is encouraged to provide resources to CHEP and/or encourage CHEP to allocate resources to CEEP to facilitate the assignment of personnel to serve as ombudsman and advocate for ENEP students on administrative and other matters.

7.3 Greatest Concern

· Cumbersome administrative structure at present.

7.4 Major Changes Recommended

· Administrative reporting line

· See General Summary

7.5 Maximum Student Capacity

The committee did not have an opinion on this matter.

7.6 Program Continuation

Per discussion in our General Summary, we strongly recommend continuation of the program.

[1] Nearly all of the 71 graduate assistantships provided ENEP students during 1998-2002 were research assistantships. A small number of competitively awarded fellowships were received by ENEP students. While ENEP students have been highly successful in these competitions, a maximum of 3 such awards are annually available; a total of 9 fellowships were won by ENEP students in the period.

[2] One doctoral student received full support (tuition and stipend) from his government for all years of his enrollment. Thus, 7 of 7 doctoral students receiving assistantships produced their dissertations on topics related to their CEEP support.

[3] This is based on workload agreements for 3 core faculty that are detailed in Appendix N of the Self-Study Report and an assumption that 50% of Professor Byrne’s and Wang’s salary can be allocated to ENEP-related instruction, research and services, and a two-month salary supplement provided to Professor Sylves in his capacity as program director can be allocated to ENEP. It does not include associated fringe benefits. With fringe benefits included, the earmarked intramural funds are about $195,000 per year. However, CEEP annually generates salary and fringe benefit support for ENEP core faculty that, in effect, reimburses the University for its intramural support. While the annual salary funds raised by CEEP varies, the Director, Professor John Byrne, indicated that a reasonable yearly estimate would be $25,000 (including fringe benefits).