Print Page   |   Contact Us   |   Report Abuse   |   Sign In   |   Register
Greg Lanier
Share |

Institution: University of New Mexico

Location: Albuquerque, NM


Institution Type: R1 Flagship Hispanic Serving Institution; Public 4-year

Program Type: Honors College

Program Enrollment: 1900 per year

Present Position: Dean, Honors College

Previous Honors Positions: Director, University Honors Program at University of West Florida (since 1998)

NCHC Member Since: 1989

Program Reviews and Consultation

  • King Fahd University of Petroleum and Minerals (2017)
  • Grand Valley State University (2017)
  • Hardin Simmons University (2017)
  • Auburn University at Montgomery, Honors Program Review, (2016)
  •  Concordia University, Chicago, Honors Program Review, (2016)
  •  Tennessee State University, Honors College Review, (2016)
  •  Rowan University, Honors College Review, (2016)
  •  The University of Texas San Antonio, Honors College Review, (2016)
  •  The University of North Georgia, Honors Program Review, (2015)
  •  Stockton University, Honors Program Review, (2015)
  •  Florida State University, Honors Program Review, (2015)
  •  William Patterson University, Honors Program Review, (2014)
  •  University of Auburn Montgomery, Honors Program Review, (2014)
  •  Cameron University, Honors Program Review, (2014)
  •  Miami-Dade College, Honors Program Review, (2014)
  •  University of California at Riverside, Honors Program Review, (2014)
  •  University of Maryland Eastern Shore, Honors Program Review, (2014) 
Further details available upon request

NCHC Activities Related to Honors Program/College Assessment & Evaluation:

  • Past President, National Collegiate Honors Council, 2013
  • President, National Collegiate Honors Council, 2012
  • President-Elect, National Collegiate Honors Council, 2011
  • Vice President, National Collegiate Honors Council, 2010
  • Member, National Board of Directors, National Collegiate Honors Council, 2007-2009
  • Past President, Southern Regional Honors Council, 2007-2008
  • President, Southern Regional Honors Council, 2006-2007
  • Co-Chair, Assessment and Evaluation Committee, National Collegiate Honors Council, 2006-present
  • Co-Chair, Finance Committee, National Collegiate Honors Council, 2007-2008
  • Member, Finance Committee, National Collegiate Honors Council, 2006-present

Activities in other areas or organizations related to assessment or site visits, workshops, etc.:
  • Co-author, A Practical Handbook for Honors Program and Honors College Assessment and Evaluation, with Rosalie Otero and Bob Spurrier
  • Co-facilitator, NCHC Assessment and Evaluation Institute, 2012 (Lincoln) 2010 (Atlanta); 2008 (Portland)
  • Presentations on Honors Program Assessment and Honors Student Leaning Outcomes at NCHC Conference (2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013)
  • President, Southern Regional Honors Council
  • President, Florida Collegiate Honors Council
  • Co-Author, “Benchmarking Quality in Challenging Contexts: The Arts, Humanities, and Everything In –Between,” Jossey-Bass
  • Program reviews and self-study production in the areas of Theatre, English, and Music 

Self-Identified Areas of Special Interest and Experience

  • Assessment of Honors Outcomes
  • Budgeting
  • Graduation Criteria
  • Leadership & Enrichment Programs
  • NCHC Involvement
  • Research about Honors
  • Recruitment & Retention of Students
  • Honors Faculty Development
  • Extracurricular & Co-curricular Activities
  • Student Honors Organizations
  • Honors Curriculum Design
  • Experiential Education

On the Role of the Site Visitor as Consultants & Program Reviewers

  The primary goal of a site visitor is to help others advance the mission of Honors in the academy.  An NCHC site visitor is there to offer assistance, to advise, to see things differently from an outsider’s perspective; it’s as simple as that.  At its core, Honors is about enhancement—academic enhancement, personal enhancement, and for the site visitor, program enhancement.  An NCHC site visitor should always remember that Honors, like Dante’s universe, is driven by desire: students want to be in Honors, Honors directors want their programs to be good and to get better; institutions want Honors to be part of their structure for lots of reasons including prestige, increased student enrollment and retention, better facilities, a better reputation, etc.  Therefore, any and all interactions that a site visitor would have with the students, faculty, staff and administration from the host institution should be as positive as possible.  The purpose of all assessment should always be to improve the situation at hand, so an NCHC site visitor must be ready to assist, not detract or belittle. 

That said, a site visitor must be professional, honest, and objective.  In essence, an Honors Program review is very much like any program review in an academic discipline (like NCATE for Education, AACSB for Business, NASM for Music, etc.).  The object of such a review is to examine both the written and on-site evidence relating to the performance of the program in all its many facets.  As such, a site visitor must first do all the necessary homework and thoroughly read and prepare all the material submitted (although I do hope that most will be humane about these submissions). 

Secondly, the site visitor must, must, must listen.  Not talk, listen.  The site visitor is on campus to gather as much information as possible in what is really an impossibly short time.  Professionalism and collegiality are a must, but the temptation to regale the hosts with extensive pointers and lessons on “how we do it at University X” has to be resisted.  The written report provides the opportunity to offer a list of recommendations, and that is the vehicle where positive suggestions that emerged during the visit should be raised. 

Lastly, the site visitor must respond with the written report in a timely fashion – preferably two, but certainly no more than 3 weeks.  Although some important, maybe even crucial, observations may emerge during the visit (and the exit interview), the site visitor must remember that the report constitutes a written document that can and should be used to effect change—sometimes drastic and unwanted change.  As such, the site visitor needs to be extremely sensitive to the language used in the report so as to effect meaningful and positive change and not, be it intentional or unintentionally, plant landmines.

more Calendar

12/27/2018 » 1/2/2019
Partners in the Parks: Big Bend National Park

1/18/2019 » 1/21/2019
Partners in the Parks: Cedar Breaks National Monument

Featured Members

Online Surveys
Membership Software Powered by YourMembership  ::  Legal