CFR Faculty Meeting
December 17, 2002
Notes
CFR Faculty attending: Agee, Bare, Boardman, Brown, Brubaker, Chalker-Scott, Eastin,
Edmonds, Ewing, Ford, Fridley, Greulich, Gustafson, Halpern, Harrison, Henry,
Hodgson, Johnson, Lee, Manuwal, Marzluff, McKean, Northey, Perez-Garcia, Raedeke,
Reichard, Ryan, Schreuder, Sprugel, Turnblom, Wagar, West, Wott, Zabowski
Also attending: Corboy, Green, Marra, Paul, Singh, ZumBrunnen
Agenda: Discussion of Ad Hoc Working Group’s proposed motions and possible vote on
each motion
J. Perez-Garcia opened the meeting, noting the agenda’s topic for discussion. He
turned the meeting over to L. Brubaker, chair of the Ad hoc Working Group on
Curriculum, to explain that committee’s proposed motions.
L. Brubaker began the discussion by reviewing the committee’s statement of CFR’s
contribution to the UW, its academic niche – “present[ing] key principles and processes
that explain the behavior and interaction of biotic and social systems along gradients
from highly to minimally impacted terrestrial systems.”
She noted that the committee had explored what CFR looks like, within the UW as a
whole, from a number of different perspectives. She said that CFR has been presented
with a variety of evaluative data and statistics from upper campus administration, which
has been communicated to CFR in various ways. She presented data showing an
additional perspective – number of average graduating seniors per year in CFR’s UG
programs. She said that, from this perspective:
9 CFR’s metric (15 per year per program) makes us look very different from other
science and professional, and almost all other, programs on campus. The average
for Arts & Sciences curricula is 97.
9 We are most similar to the rare languages, e.g. Russian,Classics. The closest
science programs are Botany (31), Astronomy (37) and Geology (39).
9 Colleges similar to CFR in total annual graduating majors (Ocean and Fishery
Sciences, Social Work) have 1 or 2 programs.
Comments on this presentation included:
•
Why is the metric of graduating seniors per major important?
•
It is important, because upper campus UW administrators likely see it as
important
•
Obvious trend is the merger of programs, e.g., merger resulting in the
Biological Sciences Dept
•
Data, as presented, are a powerful statement of why our UG programs should
be integrated
•
Would integrating our programs into two be viable?
•
We can’t know until we try it
•
CFR not alone among UW programs in the difficulty of students finding us
L. Brubaker said that the intention in providing the data was simply to show that we
don’t look like the rest of the UW – that even with no preconceived idea of whether CFR
was doing the right or wrong things, we stand out to the observer as being different and
thus meriting review. She then briefly presented the three motions developed by the
committee:
Motion 1: The undergraduate program shall consist of 2 curricula:
1. Revised PSE curriculum (structure to be determined)
2. Interdisciplinary curriculum incorporating elements of the current non-PSE
curricula
With respect to motion #1, she explained:
9 the committee had concluded it was not possible to merge the current CFR
curricula into one program due to the math, science, and engineering requirements
of the PSE program
9 a majority of the committee had concluded that 2 programs are preferable to 3;
therefore, it was not recommending that EHUF or other non-PSE curriculum remain
as a stand-alone program
9 small programs are at jeopardy; can result in unbalanced faculty profile with little
time for research responsibilities
9 benefits of cooperation would result in all CFR faculty supporting each other to
make each other better
9 profile of student age structure is similar in all current CFR curricula
Motion 2: The interdisciplinary curriculum shall consist of:
•
UW graduation and curriculum prerequisites: ~60 credits, 100-200
•
Common set of core courses: ~20 credits, 300 level
•
Restricted electives from within the College: ~35 credits, 300-400
•
Free electives: ~65 credits
With respect to motion #2, she explained:
9 specialized programs or concentrations organized around faculty strengths could
continue under this structure
9 grad research programs would continue but there would also be the potential for 32, 4 -1, or cross-UW professional master’s programs
9 links to other UW units could be enhanced through (1) entrepreneurial activities
initiated by faculty (e.g., poplar cooperative, urban ecology initiative, REN; (2)
300/400-level magnet courses to attract students from outside CFR (currently
successful examples with 35+ enrollment include conflict resolution, creativity,
restoration, and others); (3) a structural link to PoE by providing the terrestrial
environmental science component to a future environmental science degree (now a
moving target)
Motion 3: The core course requirement shall consist of 4 courses (5 credits each)
covering the following topics:
•
Ecology
•
Society/Culture
•
Environmental/Resource Economics
•
Field Analyses
With respect to motion #3, she explained:
9 the core course topics would cover our “academic niche” gradient from wildland to
highly impacted systems
9 development of these courses must occur with an awareness of the total package
9 core courses are meant to serve the needs of the whole curriculum and provide a
foundation for upper level courses
J. Perez-Garcia asked if there was a call for clarification on any of the material
presented by L. Brubaker. With no further questions, it was moved by J. Perez-Garcia,
seconded by J. Agee that the motions be presented for a vote: Discussion on motion
#1 included the following comments/questions:
•
Under proposed two-curricula structure things could look a whole lot different
on the surface, but essentially remain the same
•
2nd curriculum needs to be more defined; merely calling it the “non-PSE”
curriculum is not attractive; environmental science is not explicitly present in the
description
•
Design of the curriculum coursework will come later, but committee needs a
signal from the faculty to go ahead with work on the 2-curricula model
•
Reading between the lines, it is clear that environmental science is there
•
How long after a vote will it take to implement the new structure? – quite
possibly a very long time
•
•
•
New program could probably be in place by some time in next academic year
Working on developing the group of courses comprising current EHUF
curriculum took six years
Tweaking the new program will require ongoing effort
•
Wildlife science program struggled for years to keep up with growing number of
majors; when this happens research suffers. This also happened in Botany, but
now with merger into Biological Sciences the resulting cooperation will help
faculty to grow and thrive
•
Will there be discussion of the minority memo proposing that EHUF remain as
a stand-alone curriculum?
L. Brubaker said two members of the ad hoc Working Group who share one committee
membership (K. Ewing and S. Reichard) had written a minority report and that this had
been distributed to the faculty prior to today’s meeting. She asked if authors of
minority report would make a further statement for discussion.
S. Reichard said that the minority members saw the new integrated curriculum as very
positive and that they would like to participate in it. But they felt that EHUF is a viable
program; begun in 1992 and revised in 1999, it has been very successful, with student
numbers increasing. She said the EHUF curriculum should be able to continue with
the EHUF faculty also contributing to the new integrated program. She said that, using
a business analogy, keeping a product with high demand and potential for growth,
would seem a wise choice, rather than risking all for an unknown outcome. She said
D. Friedman informed the committee that although there is a high demand at UW for
classes in the environment there is not a high demand for an environmental science
major.
Discussion on the minority report included the following comments/questions:
•
With EHUF faculty continuing to teach a stand alone curriculum, as well as
making a teaching contribution to the new program, the ability to contribute to
research will suffer
•
A clarification was offered of D. Friedman’s remarks on environmental
science majors at UW, now and in the future: they will never be huge numbers
(e.g. like Art), but they will remain healthy and have growth potential
•
We have been requested by Provost to more fully integrate our programs
•
We need to signal that we are working together – could an interim step be to
keep EHUF separate for a while? No minority reports from other CFR
curricula proposed for the integration have been forthcoming.
•
The new program will need the full participation from the EHUF faculty, their
contribution will be key.
•
It’s still not apparent that two proposals are mutually exclusive; EHUF faculty
could do both
•
New structure could free up time at the lower level, allowing time for research
and teaching more highly specialized courses at upper level
•
It seems clear that the ability to continue concentrations exists under
proposed new structure; people need to be willing to “give” a little of their
territory
•
Concentration could really be seen as a substitute for a curriculum
There was no further discussion and the vote on motion #1 proceeded by paper
ballot.
The motion carried by the following vote: Approve 28; Oppose 4; Abstain 2.
Discussion on motion #2 included the following questions/comments, after
clarification that this motion does not include the specific content of the core courses,
but only proposes the structure of the program (# of core, restricted elective, and
elective credits):
•
•
What prerequisites to the proposed new program are available at
community colleges?
Almost all are available at community colleges.
•
Important to have the new program be “transfer-student friendly” – this was
the intent of the committee proposal
•
We might actually get more students at the 100-200 level if we increase
magnet-type service courses
•
The committee plans to work next quarter on how to expand CFR’s service
course offerings
•
Why should there be 35 electives restricted to CFR courses? In some other
UW programs, 20 credits are all that is required for a major. Perhaps the 35
should not be required to taken within the college. But then why have a
college at all?
•
The proposed requirements provide a structure that gives more
responsibility to students for their own education. The 35 restricted electives
make sure that there is a “there” there, but provides ample flexibility. We
need to generate SCH from our own teaching; deviations from the 35
restrictive electives could be easily accomplished by individual petition. The
35 requirement is not onerous.
•
35 restricted electives may actually be too few – maybe there should be
more
•
Proposal was designed to provide the highest degree of flexibility, in
contrast to our current program structures
•
Proposal attractive in that is very balanced
There was no further discussion and the vote on motion #2 proceeded by paper ballot.
The motion carried by the following vote: Approve 27; Oppose 4; Abstain 2.
Discussion on motion #3 included the following questions/comments:
•
What does the core course topic “field analysis” mean? Why not call it
“measuring and monitoring,” as in previous integrated proposal?
•
Intent was that the course would not be restricted to technical
measuring/monitoring activities but would include analytical tools that could
support all relevant fields – e.g., using tools in a case study to answer a specific
question
•
•
Semantic shift in title, but content of course did not change from previous
proposal
Our students need to know measuring/sampling techniques
•
How will these core courses affect/interact with PoE.? C. ZumBrunnen, PoE, codirector, in attendance at meeting, responded: PoE wants to work collaboratively
with the proposed integrated program; it would be a win/win strategy to
collaborate
•
Physical/natural science is where we are strong; we are thinnest in the social
sciences; perhaps PoE can collaborate to provide part of the core.
•
How is concept of sustainability reflected in the core courses? Can it be seen
as a thread running throughout?
•
Sustainability, if expressed as the “triple bottom line” is too simplistic. Need to
know more of course content before supporting the motion. A more fundamental
basic theme might be population genetics.
•
Why not have a seminar every quarter for all CFR students on some aspect of
sustainability?
•
There could be a theme or emphasis on some aspect of sustainability that
changes each year – could be identified and advertised in advance
•
Perhaps defining the core topics is too rigid an approach – doesn’t allow for
cross-fertilization
•
Biology has a core course called “Ecology”; ours would probably be different
•
Why not have, instead of 4 5-credit core courses, simply a core of 20 credits of
integrated courses covering the proposed topics? Could envision, for example a
10 credit course on “Ecology and Culture.”
•
An amended motion was put forward by J. Marzluff: “The core course
requirement shall consist of 20 credits, covering the following topics –
Ecology,Society/Culture, Environmental/Resource Economics, and Field
Analyses – in an integrative, innovative way.” The amended motion was
seconded by J. Perez-Garcia.
The vote to amend motion #3, as above was voted by hand vote, with 21 in favor, 4
opposing, 3 abstaining.
There was no further discussion and the vote on motion #3 proceeded by paper ballot.
The motion carried by the following vote: Approve 21; Oppose 5; Abstain 3.
The meeting adjourned at approximately 5:20 p.m.