Members Present: Glenn Broadhead (Hum), Jeff Budiman (CAE), Kevin Cassel (MMAE), Howard Chapman (Kent), Joel Goldhar (Stuart), Andy Howard (BCPS), Sanjiv Kapoor (CS), Bogdan Korel (CS), Robert Krawczyk (ARCH), Vijay Kumar (ID), Arthur Lubin (AMAT), Victor Pérez-Luna (ChEE), David Peterson (PSYC), Ganesh Raman (CAE), Jay Schieber (ChEE), Ken Schug (BCPS), Phil Troyk (BME).
Members Absent: Ralph Brill (Kent), William Grimshaw (SocSci) Joyce Hopkins (PSYC), William Newman (MSED), David Sharpe (ARCH), Miles Wernick (ECE), Geoff Williamson (ECE).
Visitors: Allan Myerson (ChEE / Provost), Greg Pulliam (HUM), Kathryn Riley (HUM), Ken Stagliano (BCPS).
Convening: The meeting began at 11:48pm in Siegel 306.
Allan Myerson visited with the Faculty Council.
His primary goal was to discuss the reorganization of the university,
particularly as it relates to the entity currently known as the
Undergraduate
College; he also wanted to make a few announcements.
Administrative Reorganization: Allan has reorganized admissions for the entire university; all admissions-related activities except Kent School of Law will report through Vice President Mary Ann Rowan. This will enable many synergies in software and other resources. The difficulty is the this and similar reorganizations have resulted in a number of direct reports to the Provost, including Student Affairs and Athletics. None of these activities belong with admissions. Also, the Undergraduate College has a lot less responsibility than it used to because the colleges and institutes are handling student issues like counseling. But the Educational Services office and the Academic Resource Center continue to report through the Undergraduate College. He is considering two models for a reorganization, under which the existing Undergraduate College would be abolished or at least relabeled. He is asking the Faculty Council's advice on how to do this reorganization, and suggested that we might want to appoint a committee to offer him advice. Phil Troyk noted that there is no real advice in the Faculty Handbook on how to eliminate a college; Allan pointed out that the Undergraduate College is not really an academic college, but rather an administrative unit. Accordingly if he does decide that eliminating the Undergraduate College is a good plan, he will implement it through the Executive Committee. Jay Schieber spoke in favor of elimination of unnecessary administrative entities. Allan agreed, but also re-emphasized the need to reduce the number of direct reports to the Provost.
Joel Goldhar observed that the original function of the Undergraduate College was to improve undergraduate retention; so he encouraged Allan to keep that goal in mind as the reorganization proceeds. Ken Schug asked whether the Educational Services Office deals with both undergraduates and graduate students; Allan affirmed that it, and the Dean of Student's Office, both handle graduate as well as undergraduate issues. Phil asked whether Allan was looking for a position statement from the Faculty Council this spring. Allan agreed that that would be useful, and asked that a group derived from the Faculty Council meet between now and then with the administrators and faculty who might be orphaned by the elimination of the Undergraduate College, including Don Ucci (Interim Dean), Carol Orze (Director of Educational Services, and Doug Geiger (Dean of Students). Phil proposed that a group meet with those people, draw up some recommendations, and bring them back to the Faculty Council by the 8 April meeting. Allan agreed to that approach. The group involved will be Glenn Broadhead, Joel Goldhar, Sanjiv Kapoor, and Ken Schug. Allan will send the list of potentially orphaned people to Joel to initiate the discussions.
Glenn asked whether Educational Services would remain in its current form. Allan said he had not planned on reorganizations at the lower level at this time. Glenn asked whether the Educational Services Office is responsible for admission of transfer students; Allan said no, but that they do advise the admissions office on transfers. Phil observed that it is easier to abolish an organization than it is to specify how to reorganize the system. Allan suggested two options:
Joel suggested that someone from marketing should be involved in the decision about how to do this reorganization. Phil suggested that the first option (both responsibilities under one academic Associate Provost) would mean the appointment was administrative, rather than going through a faculty search. Allan suggested that he might propose a dual title, e.g. "Associate Provost for Student Affairs and Dean of Student Affairs," and he would plan to appoint a faculty-based search committee in any event. Sanjiv noted that IIT does have a Graduate College; Allan said that at most universities this entity would be called the Graduate School or the Graduate Studies Program; the title of Graduate College is fairly unusual, but the functions map tidily onto other University's graduate schools. Joel asked where placement fits into the administrative structure. Allan said that placement is currently orphaned, and is considering upgrading placement and hiring someone to be in charge of Placement and Corporate Relations, which are closely related and a natural fit. He is not prepared to put that idea forward yet, though.
After further discussion Phil acknowledged that by 8 April the Faculty Council will provide a recommendation to the Provost about this reorganization, based on what the committee mentioned above discovers.
Stuart School Dean: Allan announced that the Executive Committee of the Board of Trustees has authorized him to begin a search for a new Dean of the Stuart School of Business. The search committee is derived in part from nominations submitted to the provost by the Faculty Council. Appendix E of the Faculty Handbook specifies a complex formula for the makeup of the Search Committee and for the kind of nominations that the Faculty Council should submit for it. Allan has suggested that since there are only eight tenured faculty in the Stuart School, potentially all of them could be nominees from the Faculty Council, and then he would choose from among them. Phil asked if this should be an action item for the 11 March Faculty Council meeting, and Allan said that it should. The Provost then left at about 1:15.
Phil then asked whether Joel, as a Stuart faculty member, had a recommendation on how to handle the search. Joel observed that the Dean must either be a full professor or be suitable for appointment as a full professor. He believes that it would be very valuable for the search committee to include non-Stuart faculty members, ideally those with experience in UCoPT experience. Thus if non-Stuart people who are interested in the growth of the Stuart School are involved in the search, there will be a higher probability of harmony among the branches of the university; and if the hiring of a dean involves an appointment to full professor, the search committee would have a solid idea of how to proceed. After further discussion, the Council agreed that its task should be to provide six names from outside the Stuart School for the search committee; Allan would (by Appendix E) have to agree to at least three of those names, and then he could appoint as many Stuart School faculty to the committee as he feels is appropriate. By only offering non-Stuart nominees to the Provost, we can guarantee that at least three of the committee members will come from outside Stuart, thereby ensuring academic breadth. Kevin Cassel and Joel both argued that this process will be a success only if the search is a legitimate academic search, and this approach (having the Faculty Council recommendations limited to non-Stuart faculty) is a way of increasing the likelihood of a legitimate search.
The discussion then turned to potential members for the search committee. Joel suggested that Ron Staudt and Gerald Brown from the Law School would be good choices, and then we would need several people from the main campus. Phil asked Howard Chapman to discuss the Search Committee with the two Law School prospects; Glenn Broadhead, Jeff Budiman, Andy Howard, Vijay Kumar, and Ken Schug agreed to seek out main-campus prospects. Joel suggested that including a former dean, like Mohammad Shahidehpour, would help the process.
Phil observed that a group had been appointed to draw up a statement of curricular procedures across the University. The group currently includes Victor Pérez-Luna. They have not yet met, but will report back soon.
Phil said that Jack Snapper had observed that it is unusual for IIT to bring forth a program in which a student would receive a degree here in spite of taking courses elsewhere in his or her final semester or year. Arthur Lubin asked how this program compares to a seven-year medical program; Ken Stagliano said IIT does not really have seven-year medical programs. He defended the logic of this program in that the quality of the education offered at ICO is high enough that our students will really benefit from the program. Joel and others observed that IIT does offer dual-degree programs that work the other way -- the student would take classes at a liberal-arts college for two years and complete a degree program at IIT. Joel noted that one problem with a 3+4 program is the loss of alumni loyalty. Jay said he had some concerns over IIT's loss of control over the quality of one of its own BS degrees in a program like this. The discussion focused on how to ensure the quality of a program administered elsewhere. Joel suggested that the students might be enjoined to take the biology colloquium (biology 495) during the senior year; this would enable the student to maintain some contact with the main campus. Joel also observed that the most solid guarantor of the quality of ICO's programs is the success of its students on the Optometry Boards.
The Council discussed how the program might respond to two possible scenarios: a student who registers for the program but decides at the beginning of the fourth year not to go through with the ICO portion; and a student who completes the first ICO year but then decides to leave the Optometry program. Because the joint program is a modest variant on IIT's biology program, the first of these students should be able to complete the program in one additional year. The second student should be allowed to get his BS from IIT, provided that he or she has passed the ICO first-year courses.
The discussion of quality-control issues continued. Jay suggested that some kind of annual feedback on the students, both individually and at the programmatic level, would be important. The proposal itself provides for the students' ICO grades being transmitted back to IIT for review; but the program-level review will require further attention. Ken Stagliano acknowledged the importance of these issues. Howard suggested that the students be expected to continue to discuss their progress with their IIT academic advisers during the first year at ICO.
Ken agreed to look into the suggestions of including the IIT biology colloquium in the fourth year of the program and of having the student continue to consult with his or her adviser during that year. Accordingly the council asked him to make some modifications in the proposal, and it could come up for a vote at the 11 March Faculty Council meeting. Andy and Phil observed that this program might eventually enable IIT to cultivate a relationship with ICO under which our students could take some of their courses, like their general anatomy and physiology courses; Ken agreed that that might work, but suggested that we not broach that subject with ICO until this program has been shown to be a success.
Joel asked if there are any experienced journalists, particularly those with experience in science and technology, in the Humanities Department. Greg said that he is an experienced journalist, but not in high-tech fields. Joel also asked about potential industrial involvement in the program; Greg indicated that the contacts his department has already developed on behalf of the Technical Communications majors should help in that regard. Phil noted that the program has a high percentage of electives. He asked whether that is typical of journalism programs. Greg suggested that the students's adviser would carefully advise the student based on the subject matter that he or she wants to work in. This pattern already works in the Technical Communications program.
Kevin asked Greg to compare potential graduates of this program to those emerging from engineering programs, each of whom demonstrably knows a particular subject. Greg argued that this version of the program has been designed such that the student will definitely emerge knowing a significant amount of physics, chemistry, biology, mathematics, computer science, and business principles. Joel voiced a concern that these students might be spread thin. Greg said that this program differs from a conventional journalistic program in that a lot of journalists come out of an undergraduate degree program with nothing but general-education knowledge. Joel asked whether the program teach people how to interview or do research. He also asked whether it's really appropriate to have the students deeply involved in specific advanced courses, such as object-oriented programming. Greg continued to maintain that these students would be better-prepared to write about science, technology, and business than a typical journalism major at another university. Phil noted that the Undergraduate Studies committee approved this program 16-0.
Kevin suggested that a typical editor would expect applicants for a science and technology reporting job to know more about a specific topic in science and engineering than this syllabus could guarantee. Greg suggested that that is why the program has many electives. The students who are particularly interested in writing about, say, chemistry, would take several additional chemistry courses. They might have to do some backing in filling in order to complete the prerequisites for the upper-division courses they really need for the specializations, but there is room in the program for that.. Greg suggests that this should be a legitimate and strong program, but still possess some flexibility so the students can pursue their particular interests. Specifically, they will have had a baptism into the business aspects of journalism, even if their primary focus was on chemistry or civil engineering.
Kevin asked why the curriculum was so computer-intensive. Greg suggested that computers constitute the primary contact between technology and culture. Glenn pointed out that a large fraction of the jobs in technical journalism are in computer-related areas--computer magazines, for example. Sanjiv Kapoor asked whether other universities have similar programs. Greg said he had not found any others, but wasn't certain. He affirmed that a number of market surveys have suggested that the program will fill a need. Bogdan Korel suggested that the program designers might have chosen computer-science courses that are too specialized. Broader CS courses, like the Information Technology courses that Bob Carlson manages, might be a better fit to this program. Greg said that Matt Bauer had suggested that initially, but because most of those courses are taught at Rice campus, it would be difficult to follow through on that idea: the courses would be unavailable to students without a car.
Joel suggested that this unavailability is the crux of the problem. It is hard to build a new program with off-the-shelf parts. He acknowledged that it would be valuable to improve the quality of journalism about technical matters. He argued, though, that IIT is going to need to grow a real core of journalism courses and Science, Technology, and Society courses. He suggested that inserting journalism students into the hard-core science and engineering courses will demoralize them, because they are unlikely to be able to compete effectively. He suggested that the quality of the program will depend critically on the active participation in it of its external advisory board.
Glenn moved approval for approval of the program; Andy seconded. Discussion then continued. Kevin asked whether the science and technology portion could be separated from business portion, perhaps resulting in two programs. Greg said his hope would be to separate the two once the enrollment is high enough to justify the change. He is trying to minimize degree proliferation at this stage. Howard suggested that the program might be better off if the portion related to business be either expanded or omitted. He suggested that business journalism has little in common with science and technology journalism, so it wouldn't make sense to train students in both. The proposal currently contains two business courses and an economics course, and he suggested that it should either have a larger business base or none at all. Joel suggested that the progression facilitated by this program, in which a student would learn journalism while learning some science or business, is inappropriate. A business journalist has typically been trained initially in business, and learns journalism only after completing an MBA or similar degree. Bob Krawczyk spoke in favor of the proposal; he suggested that many local newspapers would really benefit from having reporters on staff with a knowledge of both science and business. Glenn reiterated that this program is directed toward a market that really exists, and that the market surveys he and his colleagues conducted before assembling the proposal address many of the concerns that the Faculty Council was articulating. Greg said that he has discussed the proposal with Denis Roberson, and Denis has indicated that the business and economics courses listed in the proposal do constitute a broad introduction to business. He again observed that students wanting or needing a more thorough grounding in business could take more business courses in the electives, and acknowledged that he and the other program directors would advise the students carefully. Kevin asked whether perhaps the program's umbrella is too wide.
After extensive discussion Phil asked for a vote: the motion to approve the journalism program proposal carried by a 7-3 vote.
Phil distributed the report, prepared by the Undergraduate Studies Committee at the request of the Faculty Council, to further analyze the proposal to reduce the university-wide IPro requirement from six semester-hours down to three. Don Ucci sent the document to Phil this week; an HTML version is available here and will be e-mailed to the Faculty Council members. The faculty council will discuss this document and potentially take action on it at the 11 March meeting. Phil observed that the original motion, passed by the Undergraduate Studies Committee in spring 2004, emphasized the financial aspects of IPros, whereas this analysis does not.
Phil brought up two issues that arose at the lightly-attended December meeting regarding the overall health of the University. First, Joyce Hopkins had agreed to study the current online course evaluation system, which has gotten poor compliance in recent years. She was unable to be here at this meeting, so there will be followup at the March meeting. Second, Phil reminded us that we have been trying to develop two committees to deal with university finances: a committee consisting of Margaret Huyck, Miles Wernick, Phil Troyk, Joel Goldhar, and George Schipporeit to do critical analysis and offer input into the budgetary and policy process; and a data-gathering and numerical analysis group, whose members had not been chosen. Howard Chapman developed a template for the data-gathering process last year, and it should be relatively straightforward to update the numbers in his templates for 2005; Phil said that that effort needed someone to lead the charge. The council discussed the role of the policy group, and then Howard agreed to update the numerical analysis. Phil said he would contact Allan to set up a meeting between the policy group and the financial officers of the University.
Phil noted that the library committee has not yet met. Andy said he had spoken with Chris Stewart in the fall, and Chris is eager to meet with the committee.
Jeff Budiman said the Sabbatical Leave committee has met once, and has received fourteen applications for sabbatical leaves during 2005-06. The committee will complete its work in time for the statutory 1 March submission.
All other committee reports will be postponed until the 11 March meeting.