Date:
August 1, 2005
To:
Linda Beath
Associate Vice President for Undergraduate Studies
From:
M. Meghan Miller
Dean, College of the Sciences
Subject:
2004-2005 Program review, Chemistry
You have asked me to provide commendations and recommendations as part of the
program review process for Chemistry. These observations are based primarily on the self-study
and the external evaluator’s report, as well as on the context of the college and resource issues in
the college.
The self-study presented by the department was carefully prepared and department
faculty and staff were accessible and candid during the campus visit of the external reviewer.
Dr. Carlos Gutierrez did a thorough job of gathering and analyzing information, and focusing
recommendations. Given the strength and shared values of department faculty, the need to
articulate its vision for the future emerged as an important recommendation for the department.
COMMENDATIONS:
The Chemistry Department was commended for the cohesiveness of the department – in
particular the strengths of the faculty and mutual respect among faculty members. It is also a
department that has been managed well, both under the leadership of the chair and management
of the staff positions under Ms. Kuhlken.
Despite setbacks through attrition, Chemistry has done an excellent job in hiring new
faculty. This excellence is reflected by recruitment and development of faculty in the teacher
scholar mode, as well as by the ability of the department to recognize when the candidate pool is
insufficient to succeed.
Department faculty members have also worked very hard to meet the pressures from
recent institutional enrollment growth while refusing to set aside the essential (but effortintensive) role of student research at both the undergraduate and graduate level. This is a
difficult task and the faculty has met this challenge. In addition, the productivity of faculty in
garnering external resources to support these research programs has continued to grow and its
impact was clearly articulated by participating students. The result is that faculty members are
stretched thin and sustainability of these gains must be addressed.
The department is commended for maintaining a mix of student-centeredness, research
strength, self-evaluation and improvement, and efficiency in the context of state resources.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
The external review identifies several issues that jeopardize the contributions and
sustainability of this developing program:

Vision and road map. Dr. Gutierrez notes that this good department has the potential to
be outstanding. He urges the faculty to undertake a serious planning effort to set a
proactive course for the next five to ten years.

Students and curriculum. The pressure of class size growth has shown deleterious
effects. While some relief is expected when the new position allocated to this department
in 2004-2005 is filled and faculty staffing continues to stabilize, a plan to manage this
enrollment growth is essential. The curriculum is judged to be strong, although recent
changes may need to stabilize before their effectiveness is known. The reviewer
commented on the spare catalog course descriptions. The 25-word limit on catalog
descriptions is artificial and does not support the academic enterprise. This is an issue
that effects all of academic affairs and needs to be taken up centrally. Finally, the
diversity of the students served does not mirror that of Central’s service area. Physical
sciences in particular face challenges in achieving such a mix.

Faculty development and sustainability. The external reviewer noted a modest and vital
program of external research grants. I believe that the department has made systematic
progress towards growing this program, and using it to solidify departmental culture and
foster collaboration within the department. The recent NIH award is clear evidence of
this. The importance of this program in the context of the fiscal reality that CWU
operates under will continue to grow. In concert with an investment of faculty effort, the
university needs to develop a system that rewards such grants productivity.

Analytical equipment and lab support: As equipment ages in the science building, the
need for an institutional and departmental plan for its maintenance emerges. The
reviewer notes that external resources may meet some of this need and mechanisms for
recovering both direct and indirect costs should be implemented. In addition, a college
or university plan is needed. Bringing the equipment technicians to 2.0 FTE was also
recommended, in order to stabilize these positions. While some departments requested
this, there is an indication that the incumbent of the 0.75 FTE position prefers the part
time arrangement. In addition, during the next few months, the college had planned a
review of the administrative model and success of these positions.

Master’s degree program: Opinions varied considerably regarding the optimal size of
the graduate program. This program is essential to the scholarly life of the faculty and to
integration of undergraduates into faculty research. This topic should be addressed in the
department level planning initiative, and grounded in the current faculty staffing levels of
the department. The reviewer’s discussion of an external speaker series was in the
context of the graduate program, but it also addresses some key issues of sustainability of
faculty expertise. Such programs in other departments are funded from summer
development funds or from indirect return and vary in frequency from quarterly to biweekly. Costs can be controlled by taking advantage the proximity of regional
institutions and scientists already planning visits to the region. Initiating a program at a
more modest frequency and building it as interest takes hold could happen on a relatively
short time frame.
ProcessThe reviewer provided little feedback on the program review process itself, which
appeared to lend itself to this substantive review. He did note that more focused departmental
goal setting would have been an appropriate part of the process. Given the transition in
department leadership during the development of the self-study, and that other departments have
used section VIII to more fully develop long-term goals, this may be circumstantial rather than a
shortcoming of the process itself.
SUMMARY:
In summary, the Chemistry Department is vital, faculty scholarship is strong, and the
student-centered mission of the university is well supported. The strength of the faculty and their
commitment underlie this success. The key issues that face the department are those of
imagining and articulating their goals for the future and a road map to reaching those goals. The
challenge to the university is to develop support for productive faculty, so that such vitality is
sustainable. 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
Carin Thomas, Chair, Chemistry
Wayne Quirk, Associate Vice President, Graduate Studies and Research