{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.027597402597402596, 'fraction_numerical': 0.016233766233766232, 'mean_word_length': 5.8121546961325965, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Preparing the Next Generation of Faculty

The long anticipated retirement of significant numbers of senior faculty members is occurring at a time when societal expectations of academic institutions are expanding. Parents, employers, and legislators are interested in the quality of teaching provided by colleges and universities. Learning outcomes are emphasized, including traditional subject matter expertise and skills as well as abilities to use technology effectively, integrate and apply knowledge, and solve openended problems. Legislators and community leaders call for greater attention by faculty members to apply knowledge to solve societal problems. These same constituencies expect university research to aid local and regional economic development. All of these expectations take place for the most part within tight financial constraints. Without doubt, the individuals replacing retiring faculty members must demonstrate a wider array of talents than their predecessors, as well as higher levels of productivity (Fairweather, 1996; Massy & Wilger, 1995). In this context, the experiences of new faculty (Boice, 1992; Sorcinelli & Austin, 1992; Rice, Sorcinelli, & Austin, 2000) are characterized by stress, pressure,