March 30, 2005
From the Dean
Colleagues,
I promised that I would send periodic updates on activities related to the New
Horizons Initiatives. Earlier this semester I invited faculty, staff and students
to attend an open forum, hosted by the LAS Representative Assembly, as well
as to submit comments to us via an anonymous website. Approximately 75 people
attended the open forum in early February. Paul Lasley, Chair of the Department
of Sociology and of the Budget Advisory Group, gave a PowerPoint presentation
which was followed by a period of lively questions and discussion.
From January 25 until late February we kept the website open for the purposes
of receiving comments and suggestions. That site has now been closed and I would
like to thank everyone who shared their responses to the New Horizons report,
to provide you with a summary report, and discuss the next steps. We received
a total of 23 comments. They ranged in length from several sentences to more
than a page, and in tone from very supportive to anxiously concerned. Some writers
clearly understood the financial situation that has prompted these initiatives,
while others felt that we might be overreacting.
The purposes of the New Horizons report were to:
(1) Disseminate the best information on the budget situation in order to best
inform faculty and staff awareness of the challenges facing the College. The
BAG felt that an essential first step was to get consensus on the seriousness
of the financial situation. A well-informed faculty on the budget situation
is critical as we consider options for the future of the College.
(2) Present a series of proposals, ideas and alternatives that should be considered
by faculty, departments and programs. We recognized that many of the ideas were
provocative and may not be possible, but were worthy of faculty discussion and
consideration. Many of the proposals contained in the reports were things that
percolated from the faculty. The BAG was reluctant to dismiss any ideas as "off
the table". So the decision was made early on that all ideas offered by
groups of faculty, ideas that had been shared from the survey of department
chairs, or ideas that had been presented to the Dean's office should be
included.
Now to some specific feedback: There was no negative response to the need to
pull in and reallocate open faculty lines. The few who did comment on this topic
said it was necessary and urged us to develop a long-range plan. We agree with
this. This is essential and we are doing that. We received practically no feedback
on the issue of faculty assignments, although we are aware this is a topic of
concern to some. Differential workloads already exist in a number of departments.
We wish to endorse that practice and to make sure that it is done in a fair
and consultative fashion.
We asked departments to seriously look at ways to review existing majors and
their requirements in an effort to see if any additional efficiencies might
take place through discontinuation of some majors. We have already received
some very exciting and innovative proposals. Curricular review needs to be done
with care and we don't expect major changes to occur immediately, but we are
pleased with some of the suggestions that have been received. We will be happy
to assist departments that wish to organize retreats to carry on with their
discussions and deliberations.
The section on suggestions for possible structural/administrative reconfiguration
of the College appears to have generated the greatest amount of interest. Some
questioned whether the suggestions for reconfiguration actually were designed
to save money or simply to rearrange the deck chairs. Others wondered why none
of the biological, mathematical or physical sciences was included in the list
of topics for discussion. We certainly are not interested in talking about reconfiguration
simply as an intellectual exercise. Any restructuring should result in a better
entity than the one we began with and will need to be faculty-driven.
We are looking for solutions that will allow us to maintain our top priorities
in the face of diminishing state support. Some of the suggestions that appeared
in New Horizons originated from deliberations of the BAG, however several of
the ideas contained in the New Horizons report came to the BAG (some times repeatedly)
from the faculty. Clearly some faculty members are eager to embrace ideas in
the proposal and we know others feel just as strongly that this is not necessary.
This is an opportunity to have faculty discussions about how to strengthen the
College. These discussions will continue through the 2005 fall semester but
no specific timetable has been set.
The reconfiguration of the life sciences was initiated and planned over a five-year
period. Extensive and intensive discussions involving faculty, staff and administrators
from six departments and two colleges (LAS and Ag) brought about the current
results. The objectives were multiple in nature but focused primarily on how
realignment would further strengthen these units. This was not done to save
resources, but to develop stronger and more nationally visible entities that
would come about through the synergies that would be created by more closely
realigning the academic homes of faculty with similar research interests. The
results in the two colleges included the departure of five departments (Zoology
& Genetics, Botany, Forestry, Animal Ecology and Microbiology) and the emergence
of three new departments (Natural Resource Ecology & Management [NREM],
Ecology, Evolutionary & Organismal Biology [EEOB], and Genetics, Development
& Cell Biology [GDCB]), a more modern curriculum, and better-aligned research
programs.
Most of the responses to the New Horizons report, however, addressed issues
that focused on one department. There was no consensus among the writers.
We received messages not only for but also against any type of reconfiguration.
While we are cognizant that the overall number of responses was very small,
we will encourage faculty in that unit to continue to have thoughtful conversations
about what they wish to do.
On another point, faculty from a number of departments are already talking about
strategies for improving the undergraduate first-year experience. These discussions
have only recently begun, but there is considerable interest in what kinds of
activities can be developed to recruit and retain students, ranging from the
courses we offer to how we engage our students during their first two semesters
at ISU. You will be hearing lots more on this topic as the thinking and discussions
evolve.
Over the course of the next several months, we will be meeting with department
and program chairs to discuss ideas related to curricular changes. I know that
groups are going to be holding retreats in late spring and discussions will
continue through the fall semester. The products all these discussions will
eventually be reviewed by the LAS Curriculum Committee.
I would like members of the LAS family to ask themselves three questions: "What
are we best at?" "What are we deeply passionate about?" and "What
can we afford?" I look forward to discussions on what is taking place and
I will continue to request input from the faculty, staff and students. The New
Horizons planning group and I will provide you with updates on a regular basis
as we move forward. We will be holding additional open forums in the fall and
hope many of you will attend.
Thank you for your interest in what we can do to keep the College of Liberal
Arts & Sciences a strong and comprehensive entity.
Michael B. Whiteford
Dean
