Report of the Review Team
Academic Program Review
Department of Mathematics
University of Colorado Colorado Springs
February 21- 22, 2013
Summary:
The Academic Program Review Team studied the departmental self-study report and supporting
materials prior to their visit to the Mathematics Department. Inclement weather forced the visit
to be shortened to a day and a half instead of the scheduled two days. Accordingly, the
committee met with several faculty members (including instructors and adjunct faculty),
undergraduate and graduate students, as well as key members of the administration during the
afternoon of February 21 and on February 22, 2013.
The last program review, conducted in 2006, came at a time of flux, when the Department was
about to move from the College of Engineering and Applied Science to the College of Letters,
Arts, and Sciences. This move has gone smoothly, but the Department now finds itself at
crossroads again as it manages increased enrollments with limited resources. We visited a
Department that is running out of physical space; a Department that is under-staffed, with a
senior faculty that is spread too thin as it tries to add momentum to a Mathematics track of the
doctoral program in Applied Science. Despite these challenges, the morale, enthusiasm, and
energy in the Department are quite high. The faculty is very active and has a positive attitude
towards quality teaching. Barring a few critical voices, the majority of the faculty supports the
departmental leadership.
Some of the review team’s recommendations expressed in this report are not cost-neutral. To the
extent possible, potential sources of funding to implement the recommendations are identified.
Strengths
•
The impressively strong research credentials of the ten departmental faculty, and the
uniformity of the quantity and quality of their research: The review team notes a wellestablished tradition of excellence; the high bar set for promotion and tenure; and the
integrity of faculty that results in high-quality research output, as measured, e.g., by the
quality of the journals in which papers are published. We met an active faculty that is
involved in the organization of scientific meetings and collaborates with researchers
outside of the UCCS. Of significance is that this quality has been achieved and
•
•
•
•
•
maintained without sacrificing teaching standards and performance in the classroom.
Departmental Goal C, “To become an active and robust center of research in select areas
of mathematics” is certainly met, even strengthened due to effective hires in recent years.
The strategy to concentrate research strengths in three fields of mathematics: Some
might view this as a liability, but the reviewers view the focus on a limited number of
areas as a plus. Benefits include (i) the possibility to offer a coherent and distinct
graduate program, (ii) the enhanced potential for interdepartmental research collaboration
and (iii) a deeper understanding and appreciation of the research done by colleagues in
the Department. Only a couple faculty members voiced the desire to see greater diversity
in mathematical disciplines, expressing the need to recruit a geometer or topologist. In
our opinion, the concentration of research specialties enhances the success in meeting
Goal C.
A strong commitment to teaching at all levels: Outcomes assessments are in place at both
the undergraduate and master’s levels. The development and implementation of a
placement test is now complete with all UCCS students being required to take a
mathematical skills test and thus begin their studies at an appropriate level, enhancing
their likelihood of success. Institutionally, putting a “gate” for some courses may not be
popular but it often improves retention rates and academic rigor. The committee was
impressed with the level of engagement of students and tutors in the Mathematics
Learning Center. Going beyond anecdotal evidence, it might be worthwhile to assess the
impact of the Center on student learning and passing rates in math classes. Interviews
with both undergraduate and graduate students revealed that faculty members are
engaged with the learning of their students and impart a curriculum that is informed and
influenced by their strong scholarly activity. In our opinion, Goals D and F of the
Department are met.
Commendable outreach efforts: The Department has been actively engaged over a long
period with the Pikes Peak Math Teachers Circle, the UCCS Math Online program, CU
Succeed, and the Sky Sox Math Youth Days. CCLI and other NSF grants add another
dimension to these efforts, by extending curricular collaborations to regional educational
institutions. We believe that Goal G identified by the Department is met.
Further development of the doctoral program: A Mathematics track of the doctoral
program in Applied Science has finally been instituted after a long delay. It has good
potential to promote growth of the Department and create additional research
opportunities. It will allow faculty and student research to thrive at an even higher level.
Later in this report we address the challenges this raises, but the program itself is rigorous
(perhaps too rigorous) and reflects the strengths of the departmental faculty. We hope to
see the mathematics track of the Ph.D. program thrive and grow.
The overall rigor of coursework and examinations at most levels: We have come to the
conclusion that courses and examinations are rigorous, based on conversations with
faculty and students, who spoke with pride of the design and content of the classes they
taught or took. Coordinated courses, standardized syllabi and reviews, common exams,
clear communication of expectations among instructors and faculty, enforcement of
prerequisites for courses, group advising, offering honor sections for math majors,
organizing exit interviews for seniors and graduate students, surveying employers and
alumni, and closing the feedback loop of assessment exercises can further improve the
quality of instruction. One faculty member felt that the “Department has lost its way”
and that the curricular requirements are too strict, in particular, for prospective secondary
school teachers. The review team contends that standards are at a level deemed
appropriate by the University and in line with meeting Departmental Goal A.
Challenges and Recommendations
The challenges listed below are not prioritized. Instead, we have identified a few critical ones
that should be viewed as “must do,” subject, of course, to fiscal reality.
1. As the Department’s mission becomes more complex, there is a critical need for planning
ahead. This can assume several forms, but we recommend:
a. The creation and periodic revision of a strategic plan based on a clearly
articulated vision, with departmental goals and a road to implementation. It
should outline an action agenda for the near (5-year) future, including a faculty
staffing plan, specifying research areas of new hires, curriculum revisions,
funding sources, and growth of the doctoral program. It is important to set target
dates for implementation of items in the strategic plan and to regularly assess
progress towards meeting the associated goals, much as in an assessment plan.
b. The deployment of adequate administrative resources, both for faculty and staff,
to promote the successful creation and implementation of the above strategic plan.
c. The creation of a two- or even four-year undergraduate and graduate course
rotation schedule that is posted on the departmental website, facilitating better
planning for students and faculty alike.
2. We see a critical need for the Department to grow the Ph.D. program that it has fought so
long to get. We recommend:
a. Increasing the size of the Ph.D. program by two to three students a year until it
reaches critical mass and relaxing the requirements a bit during the transition
period to get the program off the ground.
b. Instituting an aggressive recruitment plan that includes recruitment visits to
undergraduate institutions, establishment of agreements with carefully targeted
schools overseas, and “branding” the unique features of the program.
c. Exploring ways to strengthen the applied aspects of the “Applied Science Ph.D.,”
perhaps by introducing “applications” and “interdisciplinary” components to the
dissertation and requiring the doctoral students to take courses that stress
applications.
d. Examining venues to financially support the doctoral program by swapping
lecturer positions with graduate student positions, at a reasonable rate to be
determined by the Department. For example, 20% of the yearly budget for
lecturers could be an achievable target. Assuming that a graduate student teaches
4 courses a year, this could save approximately $8,000 from the lecturer budget.
Thus, three new doctoral students per year could offset the delivery of 12 courses
by lecturers. That amounts to $24,000 per year or 20% of the lecturer budget. It
is tacitly assumed that the Institution helps seed the emerging doctoral program by
absorbing the cost of tuition of doctoral students who teach. Offering competitive
“tuition plus stipend” packages will attract high-quality, full-time doctoral
students which are essential to make a Ph.D. program thrive.
e. Using a combination of Math Online, CU Succeed, indirect cost returns, and other
emerging revenues to cost-share the funding of new graduate student positions.
This could be part of a campus-wide plan involving stakeholders in various
departments. For example, a successful application to, e.g., the NSF-IGERT or
NSF-GOALI programs could serve multiple goals, such as forging alliances with
industry, fostering interdisciplinary aspects within the doctoral program, and most
importantly, providing graduate student support.
3. More faculty lines need to be established. Doing so will further enhance research
strengths, allow more frequent offering of courses such as Complex Analysis, reduce the
dependence on “hired help” (lecturers), and reverse the upside-down pyramid-like
demographics of the top-heavy department. Among the items discussed by the reviewers
with faculty were the relative merits and demerits of strengthening existing focus areas of
research as opposed to adding more breadth by hiring in new areas (such as geometry or
topology). Based on faculty input, we recommend that the Department stays with the
first strategy, but diversifies within the current specialties. Therefore, the Department
may wish to hire in contemporary (emerging and cross-cutting) areas such as (i)
Computational Mathematics to support the applied mathematics/analysis group, (ii)
Statistics (possibly predictive modeling and big data) to support the probability group,
and (iii) Algebraic Statistics to support the algebra group. A target of two new faculty
lines within three years is reasonable and should be supported by the Institution.
Strategic hires will add momentum to the doctoral program and broaden the offerings for
mathematics majors. The Department should explore ways to use new hires to actively
inject an “applied science” component into its curriculum while staying true to its
disciplinary roots. Should the Department hire additional Instructors in the future, they
should restrict the search to candidates with doctoral degrees. They can be deployed at
different levels in the curriculum, teach a broader spectrum of courses, and could also be
engaged in the doctoral program.
4. The desire to see space dedicated to the formation of a “Computational Lab” is definitely
worthy of support. We recommend that, as space becomes available, the University
identifies an appropriate location for such a facility, which ought to fulfill several
academic purposes. We envision it as a study lounge; a room for group interactions; a
lab for multi-level computational platforms for across-the-curriculum computing. A
place in the Department where “students have a sense of belonging” will facilitate student
interactions, build camaraderie, and increase research discussions with faculty.
5. The Department continues to be overly dependent on lecturers. Indeed, nearly 50% of
credit hours are taught by hired help. This is a national trend that most agree needs to be
critically assessed, especially in light of the low compensation offered to individuals
teaching for “honoraria.” It comes as no surprise that the best lecturers are being poached
by institutions that can double, even triple, their salaries. As mentioned above, we urge a
“swap” of lecturer positions with Ph.D. students to enhance doctoral research.
Furthermore, it would be appropriate to restrict the use of lecturers to courses at or below
Calculus 1. The hiring of two additional tenure track faculty will further reduce the need
for lecturers. We share the concerns about this issue with the members of the 2006
external review team.
6. We find that success rates in lower level classes need to be addressed, along with the
concern of some faculty that students entering Calculus are not adequately prepared for
these classes. We first address rigor. The Mathematics Placement test appears to be
successful in placing students appropriately, but perhaps the level of rigor in these classes
is not adequate. This matter should be investigated, and if found to be valid, should be
urgently addressed. At a minimum, we recommend common hour exams in all sections
of lower level classes, a common final exam, and uniform grading policies – all three will
help establish uniform standards of content and rigor. This must not be done at the
expense of students’ chances for success. To the contrary, it should go hand-in-hand with
remediation where necessary and increased passing rates. Self-paced courses and online
tutorials might help in this regard. Now, turning to student success: Another matter of
concern to the review team is the wide variation in success rates at the lower division
service courses through Calculus 1. The passing rate in Math 1040, for example, varied
from 30.4% to 75.4%; the corresponding range in Math 1350 was 28.1% to 80%. Once
again, we feel that a non-math major’s grade should not depend on which section they
were able to register for (perhaps close to the deadline). Uniform assessment criteria,
while likely to upset some, are necessary to combat the (not necessarily opposing)
problems of (i) lack of rigor, and (ii) low passing rates.
7. The level of rigor in course offerings for math majors and graduate students is uniformly
appropriate, and quite high for a high-research, non-flagship institution such as UCCS.
Once again, the faculty members’ high expectations (of themselves!) appear to translate
into like expectations among the students. A more regularly delivered and streamlined
curriculum at the upper- and graduate-level could do wonders in further enhancing this
rigor. It does not suffice to have a long list of intermediate and upper-level courses in the
catalog if they are not offered with an acceptable frequency. At the freshman-sophomore
level, feasible curricular changes that we discussed are (i) the creation of a “Mathematical
Tools” class that might replace the existing one credit MATLAB course, and be
expanded to include LaTeX, Python, Maple, etc; and (ii) requiring a higher-level “proofs
based” foundations class instead of Discrete Mathematics.
8. The departmental main office appears to be cramped and noisy, making the work
environment for the administrative assistant quite challenging. We recommend that she
be assigned to another location where her workday could be more productive by avoiding
constant disruptions. A cadre of student workers to whom she can delegate tasks should
be identified and hired. A faculty member should take care of the scheduling of courses.
In addition, it would help to identify office space for graduate students. The office
currently allocated to lecturers will become less crowded as their numbers decrease.
9. Finally, we like to end with a broader concern. The nationwide demand for workers with
skills in mathematics is growing. The rate of increase in undergraduate enrollment in
mathematics at UCCS is in sync with national trends. The review team wonders how the
Department will translate the national urgency for more students and professionals in
STEM fields into tangible increases in students who declare a major in mathematics.
Some mathematics departments have had success in this regard by introducing elective
classes in fields such as predictive modeling and business analytics. Companies need
these skills and students must take several mathematics and statistics prerequisites in
order to be able to enroll in such classes. A major in mathematics makes sense for
students headed along such a career path. Building a viable Statistics minor and major
might offer another solution as well as opportunities to collaborate with departments at
other institutions.
Respectfully submitted by the Review Team
Anant Godbole, East Tennessee State University
Willy Hereman, Colorado School of Mines
Brian McAllister, University of Colorado Colorado Springs
March 20, 2013