Date:
August 9, 2006
To:
Linda Beath
Associate Vice President for Undergraduate Studies
From:
M. Meghan Miller
Dean, College of the Sciences
Subject:
2005-2006 Program review, Mathematics
You have asked me to provide commendations and recommendations as part of the program
review process for Mathematics. These observations are based primarily on the self-study and the
external evaluator’s report, and on a follow up conversation that I have had with the reviewer.
The department prepared a thorough self-study and carefully planned the campus visit of the
external reviewer. Dr. Bernard Madison did a professional job of gathering and analyzing information,
and focusing recommendations.
COMMENDATIONS:
Mathematics is pivotal in the academic life of the university, and the department has worked hard
to meet the challenges of burgeoning demand on a multiplicity of fronts. The department has pulled
together to meet needs in remediation, basic skills, service, teacher preparation, mathematics, actuarial
science, and graduate work. The performance of this department is clearly and consistently well out in
front of its resource base and the university’s ability to allocate appropriate resources.
The department has made notable contributions to scholarship in three broad areas of
mathematics aligned with the curriculum and has attracted external grants that revitalize curriculum. The
department culture is remarkably cohesive for such a large and varied department. Stuart Boersma’s
leadership is particularly highly valued by the department, by the administration, and found notable by the
external reviewer.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
The external review identifies several areas for focused work.

Leadership. Strengthened support for administration of this department is needed, including
support to the chair. This may take the form on strengthening the role of the program directors,
meaningful resource allocation that will allow delegation of some responsibilities, and the
development of an advisory or steering committee.

Curriculum revision and recruiting majors: The reviewer provided suggestions for degree
programs in two different sections of his report, including development of goals curriculum
revision, recruitment, and assessment. He specifically recommends review of the integration of
two major programs, and other targeted recommendations. I followed up with a phone call to
gain a better understanding of what motivated this latter recommendation, and his proposal bears
discussion: perhaps creating a lower credit option within the B.S. specifically for those carrying a
second major. He also suggests adding some flexibility, such as a broader natural science
requirement, that may help attract more majors. Curriculum and recruitment recommendations
are more fully developed in the external review. This work should be significantly moved
forward during the 2006-2007 academic year.

Faculty scholarship. The three programmatic focus areas of the department invite a broad scope
of scholarship: in mathematics, mathematics education, and in disciplines that support actuarial
science. Linking of merit to scholarly productivity is a key recommendation to the administration
by this reviewer, as well as review of the multiple and frequent reporting mechanisms currently in
place and review of the work load impact of increases to class sizes. The recommendation to
clearly delineate the kinds of scholarship expected is expected to take place as department
standards are finalized this year.
He did note how cumbersome review and reporting processes are for faculty; they will become
more so with CBA implementation, which requires workload planning and activities reports on
top of the other processes that are in place. While this issue is not under the control of the
department, the current situation could be reviewed for efficiencies – such as electronic portfolios
that can generate reports for different purposes, streamlining of university forms in light of new
standards, etc. This work would benefit from faculty input as well as administrative leadership. I
will work with COTS chairs and the college PRT committee to streamline reporting as much as
possible at the college level. It should probably be taken up more broadly as well.

Facilities and equipment. The primary recommendation here centers on the pressure created by
unsupported program growth. An interim plan to accommodate staffing of the burgeoning
program and support program administration is due.
Process:
The review process appeared to work well for this department. The need for improved
availability and timeliness of institutional data on majors and degrees awarded is noted.
SUMMARY:
In summary, the Department of Mathematics has risen to the challenges unique to this discipline,
serving its majors, its service and general education roles in a professional manner. Stresses related to its
growing role and enrollment pressure have left the department undersupported in key areas, particularly
with respect to class size, which affects program quality and faculty work load, facilities, which are
inadequate, and administrative support, both as faculty and staff. I forward the key recommendations of
the external reviewer as the most critical areas in which to make substantive progress to support this
strong program.
C:
David Soltz, Provost and Senior Vice President for Academic Affairs
Stuart Boersma, Chair, Mathematics
Wayne Quirk, Associate Vice President for Graduate Studies and Research
Doug Ryder, Academic Facilities Planning Officer