All faculty meeting 11.19.02
Attending:
Agee, Bare, Boardman, Brubaker, Edmonds, Ewing, Fridley, Gara, Greulich,
Gustafson, Halpern, Harrison, Lee, Marra, Northey, Perez-Garcia, Ryan, Schreuder, Turnblom,
Vogt, Vogt D, Vogt K, Wagar, West, Zabowski,
Proposed agenda
1.
Describe discussions of ad hoc committee
2.
Discussion of process
3.
Actions
Process of Ad Hoc Committee
Context of discussion: “next year we have to be something different:”
Should look at what we are, not to promise something we are not
Organized currently offered courses by enrollment, >10, >15 etc; those well subscribed
what we could offer next year
We work in these ranges: urban/wildland, biotic/human systems, level of individual to
landscape or region
niche: midscale between biology/society, regional focus
graphic of interactions with other campus units
graphic of enrollment/course x 2 yrs: 44 courses >20 per 38 faculty
reviewed previous visions of curricula (2, 5, etc)
difficult to measure strength vs different numbers of faculty/program, high-enrollment
courses in programs with overall low averages, etc
single curriculum: difficulty w/non-overlap of requirements of PSE and other programs;
therefore looked at 2 curricula (general requirements and student pool overlapped if other subsets
segregated)
flow of content of courses and ideas better if not divided into smaller curricula
developed format:
o
transfer friendly, easy to recruit, easy to build specialties
o
prereq & uw reqs: 60 cr
o
cornerstone areas: ecol, soc, econ, analytical, 20 cr, jr/sr
o
restricted electives ~35 cr jr, sr within College of Forest Resources, U of W
o
free electives ~65 cr
Discussion
K Vogt:
describe expertise as regional, should think international too. Should take
advantage of international opportunities, many students would be attracted
Wagar:
magnificent lab for teaching locally, but should go beyond
K Vogt:
how we sell selves determines who we attract
Lee:
This college has respect all over the world
Bare:
about to sign agreement with Peace Corps on a master’s program
Hinckley:
define niche; international yes but immediate concern, rep w/provost’s
office more important. What niche can we carve out that they will respect. May have
internationall component, but regional may be easier
Perez-Garcia:
Wagar:
what are CFR’s strengths?
first diagram, add management
Harrison:
adaptable to student needs, provost’s wants; teach outside what we normally
do, offer change. It’s a problem to say we’re really good but not address current problems
D Vogt:
and courses
Perez-Garcia:
this?
Large number of disciplines is a strength; lends to interdisciplinary teaching
One outcome of many disciplines is small class size. How do we deal with
Hinckley:
One source of small class size is looking inward. Looking inside CFR for
support rather than external linkages. Also just have to eliminate small enrollment courses
Gustafson:
We haven’t managed that well. Once courses are eliminated, students will
seek larger courses to participate in
Agee
Undergraduate curricula fragmented w/required courses small
enrollments. Idea of newer curricula is have broad set of option courses offered if demand is
sufficient. If not, cancel. If faculty feel subject needs to be taught, they can work with colleague
to integrate subjects and offer course big enough. 20 may not be high enough enrollment to be
sustainable. May need to think in terms of increasing enrollment by 2x or 4x rather than 10 or
20%. Goes against UW lip service to experiential learning but we can move experiential to
senior level, integrate with graduate teaching. Only way to do this is to have fewer requirements
in majors, and curricula flexible enough to adapt to what students will take
Lee
Bump higher level courses to 500 level w/intensive…
Ewing:
REN has 25 cr undergraduate certificate with an intro, … course, and
capstone. Suggested by Debra Friedman, now managed by PoE. PoE has four 21 cr certificates.
Schreuder:
Ewing:
What does certificate do?
Gets you a job
Schreuder:
Is your (REN) curriculum now accredited? What advantage would that
approach have for FM, which is accredited?
BRUBAKER:
Currently FM is not viable with the numbers of students/faculty. Need to
change, possibly maintaining accreditation is not as important as maintain viability of the larger
group or your group
Agee:
Maybe accreditation for SAF can be through certification program w/BA or
certificate in FM, to maintain accreditation.
Fridley:
Does SAF offer advanced accreditation? MS from Duke…
Harrison:
Kern offered something students and employers want. No longer true of FM.
Need to jettison courses/programs that don’t work
Bare:
Think about joint programs, build up enroll at 400 and 500 level. Straight
MFR in 1 yr w/added technical specialty. Links to research more closely.
Allen
What outcome is anticipated today.
Brubaker:
No vote scheduled. Need to determine direction. Address graduate program
and how it meshes w/ undergraduate. Also, connections to UW. Proposed program. My
choice: sign up for each committee and do it. Other issues related to make up of committee.
What do you think we should do?
Allen:
We have shown some can do large classes. Develop service classes, with
financial reward for success. Should emphasize creativity. Should do something. I am hoping
today is a point of decision [rather than further discussion].
Brubaker
Must address concerns of EFC
Perez-Garcia
No vote today because some faculty felt that process to date has not been
faculty-driven. Objective is to allow faculty to have say on different things we need to discuss,
make sure ideas are from faculty and not being imposed. Open to other underlying, unifying
themes that college can pick up and get behind. In EFC yesterday, the argument was made that
the Brubaker committee should end here and EFC take over, identify the sort of work to be done
(ie, grad programs, links, core/cornerstone, number of curricula). If agreement is not reached in
this meeting, EFC will work one-on-one with faculty to find solutions. We must move forward.
Process is open.
Lee:
Sandra Silverstein says in most colleges, the council takes responsibility. We
have not had strong faculty governance and are trying to develop it at the same time as
transformation of program. Do we want stronger faculty governance process or dean-directed
committees?
Harrison:
Faculty need to take responsibility for affairs of college. Over the years many
recommendations have been made which would have been excellent if implemented.
BRUBAKER:
Time out… We need to decide here what procedures should be for next step.
Not where to go but how
Manuwal:
The role of EFC is not to design curricula.
Others (several voices); …not to design but take responsibility
Perez-Garcia:
The code says EFC advises the dean on academic policies. This is interpreted
as “curricula.” It doesn’t say designs, but takes active part in … Should EFC appoint
committees or should the dean. Is there a difference?
Gustafson:
We are not not so big faculty can’t sit in a circle and make decisions. No need
for EFC if all faculty work together. The committee has made a good proposal, we should go
forward to next steps and vote
Greulich:
have in mind?
Brubaker mentioned formation of committees, what specific functions did she
Brubaker:
Undergraduate program, and its link to graduate program. Haven’t figured
out what that means. Can’t just collapse things together, but I don’t know what direction. Then,
greater university relations another big job; must build on existing linkages. These are the
responsibility of faculty as a whole in my personal opinion. Larger issue: how faculty wants
committee to go forward.
Greulich:
You’re making recommendations …
Brubaker:
My opinion
Perez-Garcia:
Should we be doing that? Is this an open process?
Greulich:
I think Linda’s right, we should sign up volunteers for committees, and let the
EFC integrate the results
Sprugel:
Sooner or later RCEP will be invoked. That involves major input from EFC.
I’m not absolutely clear that EFC should make recommendations and then also decide the matter.
Wagar:
I don’t think it matters who appoints unless there is obvious stacking. The
whole faculty ratifies the recommendations
Perez-Garcia:
Is this the way?
Wagar:
Too big a group. When committee presents recommendations, everyone has
chance to comment
K Vogt:
I keep hearing about process but we are not getting at issues.
Perez-Garcia:
Process issues have been raised. We don’t want to get down road and at time
of vote find faculty did not have opportunity to discuss, raise alternatives, etc. If it is agreeable
to continue the current committee to further develop the ideas presented, let’s do that.
Edmonds:
One way is appointment of committee by dean directly, another is for the dean
to direct the EFC to appoint committee.
Perez-Garcia:
That’s why we’re here today: Brubaker group was “hand-picked.” Is there an
issue with the process today?
Wagar:
I hear noises in EHUF that worry about “strong personalities” on present
group dragging it one way. May or may not be the case, but perceptions exist.
Northey:
On Futures Committee recommendations, we were told “we don’t like
results, we want a new committee.” I’ve heard this often 4 years I’ve been here. Is this another
instance of “I don’t like the outcome”? We’ve been doing this for 4 years
Harrison:
13 years
Hinckley:
The Hegevary report, focused on the survival of college, mentioned a long
history of lack of faculty governance. If EFC appoints, it is an instant rebuttal of this criticism,
because it is the outcome of an elective process.
Ford:
More clearly accountable committees would be good. Problem is, we need
to do something new, design things. Need innovation, which generally comes from 1 or 2
people. Remember, a camel is a horse designed by committee. A large committee doing this
work might end up with a camel. We may have to decide to back some choices which may or
may not succeed, which is hard for a committee
Agee:
I am a member of EFC and also the hand-picked committee. We have been
through this process 4 times. Faculty should evaluate the Brubaker committee, dissolve it or go
forward, report to EFC. If we start over, we have no time. I am willing to step down if I’m the
party with the “strong opinions” that makes committee objectionable to some. If we bring in a
fractious group that has to learn to communicate, etc, we won’t make it. We don’t have time to
sit back and take this easy. To some extent focus on process is a screen to avoid getting things
done. We need to move along one step at a time.
Perez-Garcia:
Linda, please explain processing the committee is using
Brubaker:
Faculty were appointed, plus students and staff. Students participating now
exceed the number of faculty, lots of input from them. Have not, unfortunately, had minutes, but
have sent out materials discussed, which have hopefully been discussed. Have not had roundtable meetings other than ones held by Bob E. Moved very quickly to this point. Needed to
discuss today whether approach should be broad (as described) or other; this is why we pushed
for something to discuss today, so that faculty CAN have open discussion about direction. This
is part of the process the committee wants, for faculty feedback. Happy to announce meeting
times to faculty at large.
Perez-Garcia:
forward.
Suggest compromise, decide if processwise activity so far is acceptable, move
Schreuder:
I want to express confidence in the committee, and urge that we move along
Harrison:
I’m not sure I do. Why do we use current students to suggest a program to
attract outside students outside. How much input have we had from outside?
Agee:
We entered with idea that participating students are not necessarily our long
run targets, students involved know that.
Perez-Garcia
Once past process…
Harrison
I have never been asked what attracts students
Perez-Garcia
Excuse me, I need to make a proposal before Briggs leaves. Can we give an
opportunity to faculty who are not here to give straw vote by email? Has to be done tomorrow,
so we can move forward
Wagar
Perez-Garcia
Let’s have a straw vote here
Not all can come to any meeting.
Gara
Go for it
Briggs
Fine
Lee:
I’m in favor of doing this, but we need to make the transformation to faculty
governance in conformance with the rest of campus. As long as this endorsement is not seen as
endorsement of the way we appointed committees in the past, then ok
K Vogt:
ideas.
Brubaker:
K Vogt
We need to think about Ford’s analogy. What is our strategy for innovative
Have you responded to the survey about links?
No, don’t believe they work
Brubaker:
If you don’t participate because you think form doesn’t work, how do we get
your ideas? Others have been working with international ideas (Hinckley, Henry). By not
responding, we don’t know you should be part of that.
K Vogt:
Brubaker:
boards?
K Vogt:
When ideas come up, we should look at ideas.
We need to do this on a fast track—can we do electronically? Bulletin
Get groups together. Smaller groups, 5 people. Say you have a week.
Brubaker:
OK: K Vogt is in charge of collecting ideas on the international angle. At
this point, we need people taking charge of things they feel passionate about
Perez-Garcia:
Straw vote on confidence in makeup of committee (or should be new
committee be appointed through EFC)?
Aye 16, of 22
Harrison
?:
How do we move forward?
Get smaller groups of faculty to capture ideas. Meld to attract students
Ford:
What would make it satisfactory to make another large course. If sufficient,
have cluster. Some judgment needs to be made about size of clusters. “Bazaar” where people
would join efforts in which they’re interested. If only 2 respond to K Vogt, or 1 to Harrison,
won’t work. If none work, then president fires us all. If cluster is not joined by enough faculty
or students, it is not acceptable.
Wagar:
If clusters meld together, ok, but otherwise everywhichway
Ford
There would have to be some structure including curriculum and research
activity. Cluster to lead to solution of problems under overall design
… missed exchange …
Brubaker:
by EFC.
K Vogt:
Post question by email: continue this committee or have a new one appointed
That’s not the right question.
Brubaker:
EFC has asked, so that’s a major reason we’re discussing it now. Can’t get to
content until process is approved.
Lee
October.
Should we have triggered RCEP when provost said no to 5 curricula in
Ford
Role of democratic councils is to be somewhat conservative. We have not
tackled issue of how some creative things can come through. Some feel we have not made
sufficient capital of current strengths. What’s EFC doing about that now?
Perez-Garcia:
What should EFC do?
Ford
Call on a number of issues: Harrison plan for large classes, recruit enough to
make ideas viable concentration. May take people, resources etc
Bare
Remember we currently have 7 undergraduate programs. Provost said go
back and think about this, this is not transformation, it’s tinkering. We haven’t proposed any
new plan, we still have 7. We will eventually, but the process should be consolidation not
elimination. Question is when. Either faculty propose a new plan to take forward OR alternately
we declare RCEP now and cut faculty out of first decision. When the augmented RCEP
committee is formed, there would be public hearing. I say let faculty propose a curriculum first.
Agee
Correction, RCEP is open to the point where metrics are defined. When they
are put together into a decision, that’s confidential and done by a committee including at least 5
from outside of the college. AFTER THAT DECISION, then the process becomes public.
Closed process until then. We are better off avoiding it until we have to/are ready to face it.
PreRCEP ability to build vision to be used during RCEP, to keep us together. RCEP is
deconstruction, divisive. We need a referendum to continue.
Zabowski
The vote should not be by just this group, others not present would be
disenfranchised.
Gustafson
Not much dissention. We haven’t had active EFC in the past, it may take
while to work out. We should determine if we’re comfortable, move ahead. Then details such as
K Vogt’s suggestion can be worked in, even after cirricula are set up.
Ford
Perez-Garcia
Ford
Does not provide vigor, strength. No “wow” from upper campus
Needs work
Agree to Brubaker process if that’s taken care of
Lee:
Let EFC take on role of activating innovation clusters around key things,
including things that would help Brubaker committee. Also, EFC should endorse Brubaker
Committee and participate; that says to faculty that the committee has the blessing of faculty. In
division meetings we can discuss, feed back to representatives
Perez-Garcia:
So we’ll have an email vote on 1. endorsement of committee work, 2 EFC
taking role of activating innovation clusters
Ryan
There’s a part missing, a conceptual piece (structure) that programs make
sense after reorganization, are sustainable. Don’t know if PSE is sustainable by itself.
Collectively vote again on 2 curriculum framework
Gara
Do we really have a thread of commonality? What is our end product?
What do we call students who graduate (like medicine, engineering), what do they do? Do we
have an objective in common?
Perez-Garcia
It is part of the charge to the committee to develop that. Problem arose
whether group legitimate
Brubaker
Would also say we may be in disagreement: We may not want a product.
Schools you mentioned are professional; we may be going more in the direction of biology.
Much broader vision, transitioning. Focused outcome, targeted products to broad variety of
directions. Dictates how specific or broad curricula should be.
Gara:
How do we differentiate that from Biology, PoE?
Brubaker:
From biology: more social policy planning, interfaces with biotic system.
From PoE: they don’t have a science degree, only a BA. Would we be attractive to students:
yes, this definition would separate us from others. Cornerstones also make us different from
others. Have a lot of expertise if not blocked into individual units and blocked from links with
others because of them
Gara:
Your mission to fit us all into this?
Perez-Garcia
Our mission
Brubaker:
We are asking whether faculty want to go down that path
Bare
Better analogy than many commonly used is Business School: they have
marketing, finance, accounting, management, information, all fit under the term Business. There
will be a future reorganization of natural resources on campus; we need to consider what we
should be/be called so when that comes we have a future in it. We have a strong core of natural
resources. PSE does not, though it uses natural resources. Common theme. But wehave
disagreement over that.
West
Others narrower
Linda mentioned 3 areas. Which are part of Brubaker committee (UG)?
Brubaker
Where we fit on campus, with innovation, seems to the area where most
creativity is called for. Graduate program. Undergraduate, how broad. Committee spent most
time on undergraduate, easiest. Legitimacy of committee is questioned most.
West:
Perez-Garcia
I thought … to another faculty group. Several exciting ideas mentioned.
Need to establish legitimacy of what’s going on to date