CFR Faculty Meeting
April 5, 2002
Notes
Faculty attending: Bare, Boardman, Bolton, Bradley, Briggs, Chalker-Scott, Edmonds, Ewing,
Ford, Franklin, Greulich, Fridley, Gustafson, Hinckley, Hodgson, Johnson, Larson, Lee, Lippke,
Manuwal, Marzluff, McKean, Northey, Perez-Garcia, Reichard, Ryan, Schiess, Schreuder,
Sprugel, Turnblom, Wagar, West
Also attending: Corboy, Green, Kaye, Paul
Agenda:
•
Bare introductory remarks
•
CTRAN presentation
•
Open discussion
B. Bare opened the meeting with announcements re: upcoming meeting with UW capital
campaign committee (4/10); upcoming CFR Advisory Board meeting (4/11); RCEP process
(further action will await faculty vote on curriculum); requesting input on Bare “sustainability”
draft; and update on UW budget process (no hard data yet). He then turned the discussion over
to J. Marzluff, CTRAN chair.
J. Marzluff summarized the revisions made in response to input re: the 3/13/02 CTRAN
proposal distributed to faculty via email (Attachment 1 ) These revisions (Attachment 2 ) to the
proposed Environmental Science, Design, and Management (ESDM) curriculum include:
•
additions to curriculum objectives
•
plan to monitor/ensure achievement of curriculum objectives
•
revisions to 3 of 4 options (wildlife ecology, forestry science, and environmental science)
•
developing linkage to PSE
•
refining sophomore core course "environmental measurements and monitoring"
•
revisiting sophomore core course “social, political, and economic dimensions of natural
resource management” with recommendations to develop this class within CFR, expanding
a course like FM 271 to 5 credits using a case-study approach
•
developing explicit statement of the advantages of the proposed curriculum over current
CFR UG curriculum structure
R. Lee distributed an alternative proposal by a faculty group to develop a three-pronged
curricular model that included: a general curriculum in environmental science and issues; a
package of related professional programs focused on environmental management and design;
and paper science and engineering. The distributed proposal dealt most specifically with the
professional management and design prong (Professional Environmental Management and
Design (EMD). In the proposal, EMD would consist of two curricula – the current EHUF and a
new Sustainable Forest Operations (SFO) curriculum that would share a common core of
identical or similar courses (including a common professional core). Each of the two curricula
would be divided into three separate tracks (EHUF: environmental horticulture, public
horticulture, and urban forestry; SFO: forest operations, sustainable forestry, and forest
engineering).
The two alternative proposals (ESDM and EMD) were discussed at some length.
Questions and comments in support of the EMD proposal included:
•
EMD provides a way to maintain the visibility and distinct identities of some CFR
professional programs.
•
EMD provides greater opportunity for disciplinary grounding.
•
Some employers may be more comfortable with the distinct identities and increased
disciplinary depth of the EMD curricula.
•
Having three distinct pathways (environmental science, professional management and
design, and paper science and engineering) may be an appropriate way to solve dilemma of
under-enrolled or declining CFR programs.
•
Integration is achieved around core requirements in communication, science, analysis, and
professional aspects. However the common core is achieved not through specific courses
but through common knowledge sets. In some cases other UW units might more
appropriately deliver these common knowledge sets.
•
There was a suggestion that the number of proposed options within the two EMD curricula
(three each) is too cumbersome and that it might be better to start off with just one main
option each (i.e., environmental horticulture and urban forestry; and sustainable forest
operations).
•
The alternative proposal’s three-prong approach better accommodates the diversity within
CFR. The goal shouldn’t be to have a common core just for the sake of having it. Other UW
professional units with diverse subject matters (e.g. CAUP) do not have a common core for
all of UG programs.
Questions and comments in support of the ESDM proposal included:
•
ESDM proposal lays out a model that is efficiently integrated at the sophomore and senior
levels with minimal requirements, leaving ample opportunity in the junior year and through
restricted electives to maintain disciplinary depth.
•
It was suggested that since the EMD proposal has a common core that appears similar to
the ESDM core, one core should be able to apply to both alternatives.
•
Distinct program identities and visibility do not necessarily require separate curricula, but
are more importantly a matter of packaging and marketing.
•
A common core curriculum for all CFR programs (with exception of PSE, although some
argued that PSE should not be exempt) will create not only a community of students, but
also a community of faculty who are able to work together toward common goals.
Discussion ensued, with different points of view on how important, attainable, or desirable it
is for all CFR students (including students in the current EHUF and PSE programs) to feel
part of a common community.
•
It was suggested that continued “balkanization” is not in the best interest of CFR vis-à-vis
UW strategic goals.
•
The integrated approach to environmental science, design, and management will have
broad appeal to prospective students and to employers.
Questions and comments relating generally to the two alternative proposals and to the
curriculum transformation process included:
•
It may useful and desirable for the faculty to have at least two fully developed alternatives to
evaluate and vote on. The models could be evaluated on a number of identified criteria,
e.g., efficiency, integration, etc.
•
ESDM stresses integration first, disciplinary depth later, while EMD stresses getting depth
before integrating.
•
There is no “optimal” number of curricula – just a sense that there shouldn’t be “too many”;
how many is too many?
•
It was suggested that the discussion could usefully be separated into two distinct issues:
(1) the adoption of a core curriculum required for all or most CFR UG programs and the
tradeoffs involved; and (2) the question of how many and which options/majors/curricula
should there be. Perhaps the key is the definition of the core and whom should it embrace?
•
Can or should current programs with low enrollments (e.g., FEE) reasonably be continued
(as would be the case in the EMD alternative)?
•
Basic issue is how to attract more majors into CFR – it was generally agreed that an
environmental science curriculum will be attractive and that there is a niche at UW now to be
filled – if CFR doesn’t fill it soon some other unit/units will.
•
An unresolved question is whether separating the environmental science curriculum from
“professional” curricula or whether an integrated environmental science, design, and
management curriculum with various options, including professional options, will be more
attractive to prospective students. How can CFR be sure what students want – in any
event, whatever change is made there will be some risk.
•
Capstone courses in both models need further attention and development.
•
Attracting large numbers of new students into CFR will require increased faculty loads –
how to deal with the large numbers of restricted or directed electives in both proposals that
are current or proposed CFR courses? It was suggested that these lists need to be looked
at for further possibilities of increased efficiency/integration.
•
Development of an environmental science degree, attractive to many new CFR majors, will
be an extremely time consuming effort requiring much planning and work.
•
Implementation of any major change will require coordination so that the transition is
efficient and is not damaging to current program majors.
Suggested next steps (no definite agreement):
•
CTRAN and faculty group developing alternative proposal work together to develop one
proposal?
•
Each group looks at the alternative proposal to see if and how a better integration might
occur?
The meeting adjourned at approximately 3:30 p.m.