Minutes*
Faculty Consultative Committee
Thursday, October 14, 1993
12:30 - 3:00
Dale Shephard Room, Campus Club
Present:
Judith Garrard (chair), John Adams, Mario Bognanno, Lester Drewes, James Gremmels,
Kenneth Heller, Robert Jones, Karen Seashore Louis, Geoffrey Maruyama, Harvey
Peterson, Irwin Rubenstein, Shirley Zimmerman
Absent:
Toni McNaron (who has been absent from recent meetings due to a medical problem, not
neglect of her responsibilities)
Guests:
Professor Carl Adams, Vice President Anne Petersen
Others:
Rich Broderick, Maureen Smith (University Relations), Martha Kvanbeck (University
Senate)
[In these minutes: the strategic plan; graduate education and research issues in planning; academic issues
in the health sciences]
1.
Questions for the Faculty Forum; Elements of the Strategic Plan
Professor Garrard convened the meeting at 12:35 and noted that the first task at hand was to select
the questions from Senate committees to be submitted to the President at the October 21 Faculty Forum.
Committee members began discussing the submissions from the committees. Discussion turned to
the issue of duplicate degrees from the University. One Committee member observed that while there are
not supposed to be duplicate degrees offered, according to the President, there will be an undergraduate
business degree offered beginning this spring through Inver Hills Community College--staffed somehow.
There is also an undergraduate business degree offered through the Carlson School of Management on
the Twin Cities campus. It needs to be explained why this is not a duplicate degree. Nor is it clear that
any curriculum committee reviewed this new degree.
Another Committee member reported that she was to have been chair of the curriculum committee
and that there was involvement of Carlson School faculty. They were also involved, it was said, in the
development of the engineering degree being offered in partnership with the technical college.
There are not supposed to be duplicate degrees, faculty, or curriculum in any structure that evolves
from the strategic plan (be it University College [hereinafter UC] or anything else). It is my
understanding, said one Committee member, that all business degrees are to reviewed by the CSOM
curriculum committee and voted upon by the faculty; there is no indication that has happened in this
*
These minutes reflect discussion and debate at a meeting of a committee of the University of Minnesota
Senate or Twin Cities Campus Assembly; none of the comments, conclusions, or actions reported in these minutes
represent the views of, nor are they binding on, the Senate or Assembly, the Administration, or the Board of Regents.
Faculty Consultative Committee
October 14, 1993
2
case. Perhaps there is a parallel process in place, but the faculty clearly has jurisdiction over curriculum.
What happened with the business degree is not known, but the engineering degree was designed
with participation by IT engineering faculty members and community college faculty--and it is hard to
imagine the same was not done with the business degree, because the people involved in setting it up are
extremely sensitive to faculty responsibilities.
A policy decision was made, said another Committee member, that the partnership degrees would
be offered under the auspices of CEE and that they could construct a curriculum committee. This is a
special curriculum process. These are set up as experiments, another Committee member reminded the
group, with a sunset clause. If they work, after a period of 2 - 3 years they will have to go through a more
rigorous review. It was thought, however, that if the programs had to go through the normal review
process now, it would have taken several years to get them approved--and if they are experiments, that is
not the right way to proceed. One can have faith that the people involved were NOT trying to circumvent
faculty control of the curriculum and that faculty will be relied on when there is some evidence about
how the programs are working. The engineering degree, it was concluded, was a great idea--it filled a
niche and did not duplicate anything else offered.
Confusion has arisen about the plan, and these partnership degrees, because originally the faculty
thought there WOULD be separate faculty and degrees--and perhaps that is what should be considered.
Many faculty members have said they want an arm's-length relationship with a UC. The statement now
that there will NOT be separate faculty and degrees is confusing.
Professor Rubenstein at this point distributed a draft outline of the latest version of the strategic
directions; he pointed out that the UC question is a small subset of a subset of the issues and that the
discussion should be focused on the major questions.
Committee members then turned their attention again to reviewing the questions submitted by
Senate committees. Discussion turned back to UC again, however, after reconsideration of whether or
not there will be two different degrees from the Twin Cities campus. Some faculty originally envisioned
UC under a provost and treated as a different campus, just like Crookston or Duluth or Morris. Now it
appears there will not be different degrees in the same field.
The committees are now hearing from the administration that the focus should be on the
directions, not on "what" or "how" to do it. From now until December, the faculty should talk about
directions--including access to the University. If UC could be made to work, fine; if not, there will be
some other method of dealing with the issue of access. The more fundamental question is whether or not
the University, over the next five years, should ensure it remains accessible to the public. But the
University already is, it was said--that would be no new strategic direction. No, it was replied, it is a
research university. There are mechanisms to make the University accessible, but the idea is to improve
them.
Another Committee member agreed that the attention must be on directions, not on details. But
the problem is that faculty members are creating a notion of what is being said and then asking questions
about it. The only formal document available is the buff-colored strategic planning newsletter. The
faculty governance system needs to be responsible, but it should not make up questions and the answers.
Faculty Consultative Committee
October 14, 1993
3
It is the way the faculty can learn what is planned, it was said--by posing hypotheses and seeking
responses from the President.
Or they can ask about ways to do things if they can agree on a direction, it was said. But people
don't want to agree on direction unless they are sure the details will flow as they want them to. Faculty
members like to be critical but they seem reluctant to examine the President's basic vision statement and
then decide whether they support it as a vision statement. They demand to know how the undergraduate
experience is to be remodeled rather than debate whether remodeling is needed to accomplish the mission
of the University.
We want the administration and Board of Regents to set the direction, said one Committee
member, and then to ask the colleges and faculty how to move in the directions set. The administration
CAN'T do it, so the faculty must "buy in" to the directions, but the administration can then provide the
funds and seek ideas on how to move the University toward the goals. But there must be a division
between what the administration can do--set the direction, with faculty support--after which the buck
must pass to the faculty and staff who have to do the work.
If the Board of Regents decides what to do and the faculty disagree, the Board must then make a
decision to either not do it or to do it with other people. One can interpret this plan as a question to the
faculty: Can the University be a better undergraduate institution? There hasn't been an answer yet.
Some on the liberal arts faculty have said they are not interested in serving career-oriented students.
That's not something a liberal arts education is for, it is said; it is for the students who will go on to
professional or graduate school. But what of those who will not follow that path? The liberal arts
faculty seem not to be thinking about those students. Mechanical engineering faculty do.
But students don't know what will happen to them; if they don't have the exposure to the liberal
arts then, when? The President and Senior Vice President have suggested that lower division education
at the community colleges can provide it. Sometimes, moreover, pointed out another Committee
member, they do it better than the University.
In terms of the questions to the President at the Faculty Forum, Committee members agreed they
would NOT ask about operating details (which will come later) or about the problems or forces acting
on/within the University (which are reasonably well understood). The task, said another, is to be sure the
Regents are aware of faculty views about the plan--not to express opinions about UC.
One Committee member expressed misgivings about whether or not there was agreement on
directions, given the variety of opinion on what UC is supposed to do. The goal of UC is not clear, nor
what it is intended to accomplish. The discussions must be about directions, it was said in response; yet
another Committee member observed that the comments at this meeting have helped clarify what the
faculty should be focusing on--and the Committee has not done a good job of instructing the faculty,
because they are all stirred up over operating details such as UC. Nor has the administration done a good
job in this respect.
There should be a statement at the beginning of the Faculty Forum, it was said, asking about the
undergraduate experience. The administration claims it is inadequate and that the University cannot
compete with other institutions. Why not? What should be done about it? This plan is based on the
Faculty Consultative Committee
October 14, 1993
4
proposition that the undergraduate experience is wanting and needs improvement. That proposition is
very likely accurate--everyone has their anecdotes. Part of the issue is competition with other public
institutions and part is the relationship to graduate education. But there have been no challenges to the
claims about undergraduate education--and those claims are serving as the basis for action. The
Committee has, however, been provided with reams of information; the point, in raising these matters, is
to emphasize that the discussion must pull back and consider which questions are of greatest priority.
The Forum need not seek answers on the details; what must be asked is the questions that will move the
process along.
The debate was framed by the strategic planning newsletter, not by the Committee, it was noted.
Now that the newsletter has created a problem, the administration seems to back off. Yes, the discussion
should focus on direction, not details, but if it does, the faculty must act as if there were nothing in the
strategic planning newsletter--and in doing so, expose itself to actions by the Board of Regents which
presume faculty have approved them. The President should be told that the Forum will be devoted to
questions about direction, not systems or structure--the latter of which the faculty may or may not agree
on. Silence on these questions, added another Committee member, implies neither approval or
disapproval.
One Committee member, noting one question submitted by the Finance and Planning Committee
(is the UC a fait accompli?), said that the Committee could talk about process and direction--but if it
turns its back on UC as a detail, it may be the only group of faculty who think of it that way.
There was agreement that the President should be informed, at the beginning of the Forum, that the
faculty will assume that structure is not relevant to the debate at this point.
At this point Professor Garrard appointed an impromptu subcommittee to meet after the discussion
with Vice President Petersen to identify the questions for the forum, inasmuch as discussion at the
meeting had prevented reaching conclusions. There had been agreement, however, that the questions
selected would be about direction, process, or feasibility.
2.
Site Visits with Faculty Senators
Professor Garrard then quickly reviewed the sessions that have been set so that faculty senators
and leaders can meet with FCC members. The primary role of the FCC members will be to listen,
although when questions are asked to which FCC members know the answers, they should respond. But
they ought not try to invent content for the plan; the discussions should focus on the broad directions set
out on the fourth page of the strategic planning newsletter.
3.
Elements of the Strategic Plan, Continued
Conversation returned to undergraduate education. One Committee member contended that the
fact the University cannot attract the top 20% is ample proof it is failing in its undergraduate mission.
The University is a bargain for students but it has not made itself attractive to students. Madison is
cheaper, pointed out another Committee member.
It is not just faculty that students have problems with, added another Committee member. Students
Faculty Consultative Committee
October 14, 1993
5
like to interact with students like themselves and excellent students have complained about unprepared
students in their classes. Quite frankly, as well, it is also fashionable to send kids away to school.
Professor Heller reported that SCEP had talked about these issues at some length. There is a large
national study of universities by Alexander Astin; by all measures the study identifies, the Twin Cities
campus has been constructed in such a way that it does everything wrong. This is good research-based
evidence and suggests why the University cannot attract top students. It is, moreover, NOT cheaper to
attend the University; Harvard is cheaper than Minnesota if one is an out-of-state student because there is
no student aid package offered by Minnesota. The University has a lot of student jobs but they are not
used in financial aid.
It may also be that the University is ahead of the times, not behind them--we may be the university
of the future, with a lot of part-time and commuter students rather than residential students. It may be
that the University should not look back but rather acknowledge that this is the way things will be and
figure out how to deal with the problems.
That point is a useful one, responded another Committee member, but if what the University is
doing is combined with the way the faculty tolerate mediocre performance in the classroom, much of that
which is positive about the University is eliminated. If the faculty were hard-nosed about standards
while the University remained flexible, that would be the best of all possible worlds. But the faculty in
the core have thrown up their hands and just move students on through; it is time to say to students that if
they do not do what is expected, they will flunk--and that means with an F, not a C. But many faculty
feel they must pass students through once they've been admitted.
SCEP also discussed this, Professor Heller reported; faculty members, however, are the ones who
feel the pain of failing a lot of students so they lower their expectations. They know students are
working 30 hours per week, so their standards decline--it is a natural evolution. There should be less
worry about graduation rates and more about standards.
There have been long arguments in CLA over the last several years, reported one Committee
member, about the number of credits awarded for how much work. In the 1970s classes moved from a 3credit to a 4-credit module; now even less work is being required for 1/3 more credits. The outcome is
hardly a surprise.
Several Committee members concurred but pointed out that one must continue to distinguish
between casual and non-traditional students; as one Committee member observed, "virtually all my
students are non-traditional but they work extremely hard."
4.
Discussion with Vice President Petersen
Professor Garrard next welcomed Vice President Petersen to the meeting. Dr. Petersen began by
commenting, apropos planning, that the University must change its internal responses to federal
regulations--and is in the process of doing so. If one considers the cases of misconduct--here and
elsewhere--it is very clear the judges and especially juries view institutions very differently than the
schools do themselves. It is in our interest to keep most of the responsibility inside the academy--which
will mean more work, but it will put the University in a better position so that it doesn't end up court. If
Faculty Consultative Committee
October 14, 1993
6
the way a university does business is increasingly regulated by outside agencies, there would be
fundamental changes. Minnesota is getting an early warning on something all universities will need to
confront. There will be policy revisions related to this concern coming to FCC, she concluded.
She then told the about the Research Strategic Planning Committee (RSPC), a group charged with
examining both research and post-baccalaureate education issues. This group has been working since
last January; when the University planning effort took off over the summer, she asked the group about
continuing. It appeared to make sense to do so. The group has faculty, graduate students, and four
deans. The issues it deals with will be integrated in the strategic planning process. One Committee
member said he had handed out her version of the major elements of the strategic directions; Dr. Petersen
cautioned that they were only HER notes of on an early draft by Associate Vice President Kvavik with
the research and graduate education issues elaborated. What is helpful about this draft, she observed, is
that of the five directions the President and Provost have spoken of, UC is one of the approaches to
access.
Asked how her group ties into the planning process, Dr. Petersen said that it focuses on the first
two areas of strategic direction: research and graduate education. Asked to speculate on a timetable, she
said it changes a lot; her committee is trying for a draft report within the next two or three weeks. They
have been trying to establish quality indicators--something other parts of the planning process also want.
While that is appropriate, it has skewed their activities somewhat.
In terms of the collegiate planning process, Dr. Petersen noted that a number are underway. The
conceptual planning has been separated from budgeting. The various components of the planning
process are intended to come together at some point.
Dr. Petersen was asked what she is doing, as Vice President for Research and Dean of the
Graduate School, to preserve or enhance what the University has in graduate education in the future.
That, she replied, is the purpose of the planning group.
Will the role of the Graduate School change as a result of the reorganization of the Health
Sciences? And last week the President referred to graduate programs in UC; what would be the role of
the Graduate School if such a configuration were to develop? Both issues are still being discussed, Dr.
Petersen responded. Nothing has been said about any changes in the Graduate School with respect to the
Health Sciences but she has asked that some things be clarified. The Board of Regents has asked for
more information about the relationship of the Health Sciences to the University, although not
specifically about academic programs; she has been assured there will be no changes, but a number of
people are uncomfortable with that statement and want to see it formally stated. Some have speculated,
said one Committee member, that there might be two ORTTAs; Dr. Petersen said that was unlikely. She
has put her views in writing on the Health Science issues, she said, and the message has been received.
One Committee member, joined by others, said he would feel more comfortable if there were an explicit
and continued role for the Graduate School in the oversight of graduate and professional education in the
Health Sciences? Dr. Petersen concurred.
In terms of University College, Dr. Petersen said, the issue is more complicated. How one judges
the matter depends on whether one sees UC as a delivery mechanism or as a home for programs. If it is a
delivery mechanism, then things will not be different. She said she would prefer that a course is a course
Faculty Consultative Committee
October 14, 1993
7
whether Day or CEE--and if quality is a problem, let's fix that. The Graduate School views CEE credits
as transfer credits from outside the University. (But, observed one Committee member, at the doctoral
level the Graduate School will accept unlimited credits from other accredited institutions, given program
approval, but only 12 from CEE.) If the problem is with programs that are needed but do not exist, Dr.
Petersen said, the University should not create new structures if the problem could be dealt with within
the current structures. But there are different views on this issue, she commented.
The Committee briefly discussed professional Master's degree programs with Dr. Petersen. She
told the Committee she has talked with CEE Dean Hal Miller about developing applied Master's degrees;
where there is a demand from an important constituency, the University needs to determine whether it
has strengths appropriate for a program. If it cannot deliver the program it should say that it cannot. She
said she has not, in any event, found that faculty are unresponsive to meeting needs. One Committee
member noted that there are seven (big) graduate degrees offered by the colleges outside the Graduate
School and said it had never been understandable why they were. Dr. Petersen noted that the MD, LLD,
etc., are appropriately within their professional schools. Some other Master's degrees could be within the
Graduate School and she felt they should be welcomed there.
As the University struggles with strategic planning, said one Committee member, it is clear that
there are a lot of decisions that have accreted over the years that do not make sense now. Will the
committee deal with them? The goal should be to make the Graduate School more flexible and to permit
innovation (Dr. Petersen was complimented on the changes that have already occurred in this respect). A
decision should also be made about why some degree programs are run through the colleges rather than
the Graduate School.
The question to be asked, contended another Committee member, is when programs are NOT run
through the Graduate School. And the answer is quality control--poor programs run them in order to
attract students. The good programs police themselves. Dr. Petersen told the Committee that postbaccalaureate issues have been added to the charge to the committee.
Now that the Board of Regents has delayed consideration of some Health Science issues, there is a
period of several weeks in which there is time to look at the relationships; it is to be hoped there is a
written document. Dr. Petersen said she did not believe one was planned. There are specific issues that
will be considered, such as research administration and government relations, but broader academic
relationships will probably not be addressed. Then how on earth, it was asked, will the University recruit
a dean when those relationships are not spelled out? That will be a deadly omission--and it is very
upsetting. [Dr. Petersen added later that there will be a succinct statement addressing academic issues.]
One could presume, said one Committee member, that the relationship of the Health Sciences will
be the same as that of the coordinate campuses. Would she be satisfied, Dr. Petersen was asked, if that
were the relationship? Is she satisfied with the relationship with Duluth? The President has said that the
appointment of a Provost for the Health Sciences does NOT mean it will be a separate campus. This
Committee should insist on a written description of the relationship before the December Regents'
meeting, charged one Committee member, and FCC should be willing to meet as often as necessary to
discuss it. Now there is time and the Committee can get beyond the "trust me" approach.
A question was then raised about Duluth campus graduate programs--what is viable and what
Faculty Consultative Committee
October 14, 1993
8
process will be used to identify programs for graduate work and research. Dr. Petersen said she believes
Duluth plans to build on current strengths and focus on areas where there could be growth (e.g., water
research, biochemistry, some areas in the Medical School). That process, she said, is on track.
One Committee member observed that in all of the strategic planning discussions there has been
much emphasis on the undergraduate experience and user-friendliness; one can argue that the University
is also user-unfriendly to research. Given the long list of impediments to good undergraduate education,
one can compile an equally long list of impediments to research. The plan is addressing undergraduate
education but appears to assume that everything in research "is just ducky--and it ain't." Dr. Petersen
said she would appreciate seeing that list.
Asked if it would help to eliminate the distinction between Day and CEE; a number of Committee
members thought it would. A course should be the same regardless of where or when it is offered. The
Graduate School, she said, must also continue becoming more user-friendly.
Without in any way denigrating the quality of faculty at Duluth, said one Committee member, one
can be concerned about funds. There is a sense that the United States is over-supplied with Ph.D.granting institutions and that there will be fewer of them in the future. It is hard to understand why the
University would put more resources into another campus for graduate education. Conducting a research
program means faculty time; to be a mentor, one must do research, which means the faculty member can
teach less. Is the University prepared to cut resources on the Twin Cities campus to establish Ph.D.
programs on another campus in the state?
No one is prepared to go that far, Dr. Petersen said. The discussions are about one or two
additional collaborative programs on the Duluth campus; strengthening existing programs would be
accomplished through internal reallocation. There have also been funds reallocated at Duluth from
undergraduate to graduate programs in response to their student demand. It is not that Duluth wants to
become a full research university, but it does make sense for them to respond to the demand. There is a
difference between expanding graduate programs for mid-career populations and the traditional graduate
programs; one can argue for expanding the former, as has been the case with Rochester. (It was noted in
passing that the Rochester community wants Ph.D. education; Committee members expressed doubt it
would be offered.) The Duluth people are being very reasonable about issues of graduate education, Dr.
Petersen told the Committee, and it might be helpful for FCC to have a session with them. One program,
it was recalled, tried to work with Duluth on setting up a joint program--it never worked because they
wanted their own program, and it turned out to be easier to work with the State University System.
One should not view the Duluth graduate programs as a loss of funds for the Twin Cities,
cautioned one Committee member, but rather as gain for the entire University. That result can be
documented.
Professor Garrard then adjourned the meeting at 3:10. The impromptu subcommittee then met to
identify questions to be addressed to the President at the October 21 Faculty Forum.
-- Gary Engstrand
University of Minnesota