and membership of the new colleges.
There are 3 constraints on the structure:
- The new colleges should be roughly the same size.
- The must be at least 3 colleges.
- Creating a fourth college would require very convincing arguments
that show both the benefit to the University and how the increased
expense could be offset.
responsibilities to the 3 associate deans.
- Humanities and arts
- Art
- English and Philosophy
- Foreign Languages
- Theater
- Music
- Social sciences
- Anthropology
- History
- Mass Comm
- Political Science
- Psychology
- Sociology and Criminology
- Sciences
- Biology
- Chemistry
- CS
- Geosciences
- Math
- Physics
of control, with five departments in one college and six in the other two. It
also gives each college similar faculty sizes:
- Humanities and arts: 110
- Social sciences: 85
- Sciences: 88
be off by a few, but they are in the ballpark. (You can see my spreadsheet
at https://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=0Amw-XUxBPBF8dDNSRjFsZTcwNWZhSlNtdkhmMFlmQ2c&hl=en&authkey=CP-b3uEE.)
I've heard two other proposals:
- Move History to Humanities and arts.
- Create a fourth college for the arts, which might include Mass Comm.
problem, of course, is the expense of the fourth college. Where would the
extra several $100K come from?
What do you think?
Posted by Will Lloyd
"Humanities" includes the arts; it's redundant to say "Humanities and the arts" for the college name. See Wikipedia.
ReplyDeleteThese are very traditional and somewhat boring groupings ... why not develop colleges that mix disciplines that have some common interests ... Anth, History, Art, Geosciences, and Political Sciences? It would be an interesting and dynamic college!
ReplyDeleteNow is the time to develop something new and dynamic .. colleges that are small, innovative and responsive to innovation!
Karl
Having approximately the same number of faculty for each college is probably a good idea from a representation perspective. The college's departmental arrangement seems appropriate. Due to the extra expenses, I am not in favor of a fourth college. The history faculty are the best ones to determine which college they should belong to in my view.
ReplyDeleteHow does Mass Comm end up in Social Sciences according to one scenario and in the arts in another? That's a big difference.
ReplyDeleteModels for colleges like ours suggest that we either have one college or just two. Why are we constrained to three minimum?
ReplyDeleteIf history goes in the humanities college, then representative balance can be made, I think, with just two colleges.
Also, the distribution above is predicated on splitting Mass Comm and Theater. Is this something that department wants? What about the administrative costs of adding another department, on top of adding two more college administrations?
Has anyone done an actual cost analysis of this restructuring? If so, can it be posted in the documents section, please?
Since Mass Comm and Theatre may be splitting, what about Geosciences?
ReplyDeleteSince the split into 3 colleges is supposed to be for the betterment of the university, I think it is important that these three (or four) new colleges be given the proper resources, in terms of staff, administrative positions, and non-personnel, so as to be on equal footing with the other three existing colleges (business, education, nursing). To do otherwise, would create 3 new colleges all of which are limping out of the gate, and put them at a disadvantage for achieving the intended goals.
ReplyDeleteIf English and Philosophy split, that would give each of the new colleges six departments under the first proposed model and make it even-steven!
ReplyDeleteBut Philosophy is a humanity, isn't it?
ReplyDeleteIt would stay in the Humanities division but be its own department, giving Humanities six departments like the other two proposed colleges.
ReplyDeleteHumanities does not necessarily include the Arts as stated in an earlier post, so I'm not sure how the title is redundant.
ReplyDeleteI'm concerned with the timetable the committee has apparently set. It seems they are not listening to faculty who have openly stated that creating a timetable that includes deadlines prior to the start of the fall semester is excluding a large number of COAS faculty from the opportunity of participating. This seems antithetical to shared governance.
So here's my question: Dr. Lloyd, what is your committee's definition of shared governance?
Why is the committee's timetable not published on any of the sites being set up?
ReplyDeleteThe general timetable was included in Dr. Sethna's email of June 21 that formally announced the committee. I assume the committee's work is occurring according to that, is it not?
ReplyDeleteWhy are we worried about extra expenses of a fourth college when Dr. Sethna is not worried about it? He's initiating the split and stated publicly that three or four colleges would be the ideal for him.
ReplyDeleteThe point raised above is a good one. Will cited a number early on of "several 100K " as the going rate for a new college. Why is it that the Humanities, Social Sciences and the Sciences are worthy of this staggering costs yet considering a 4th college with the arts is somehow questionable? At first glance this may look like someone is making a judgement called regarding disciplines which, of course, no one wants to do. We want a fair process where all disciplines are considered equally worthy.
ReplyDeleteAs Will has pointed out, the charge from Dr. Sethna is not for us to justify the COAS split arrangement based on costs--he has already approved the split and is prepared to spend the money. I agree with anon above: why would we object to a 4th college citing extra costs as the reason for reservations?
So far, I don't read anybody in the discussion as judging arts as unworthy of having its own college. The beginning point of the discussion was that there could be a separate college for arts and humanities. The only time I have read "college of humanities" without arts is by those who wish there to be a separate arts college. Moreover, the cost issue is not only raised in reference to a fourth college (out of A&S) but the second and third (and fourth). In other words, I don't think the arts are victims here of disregard or disrespect.
ReplyDeleteI don't want to disrupt the discussion, but I do want to say (and it's a good indication of the current campus climate that I feel the need to do so anonymously) that there are those of us in COAS who are not participating in this process because we believe that it is a rigged game. The president has clearly revealed -- over and over again now -- that he has no understanding of faculty needs and concerns and no respect for our opinions. Since the president makes the final decision, I think there is a very good chance that the Task Force's work will ultimately be meaningless, and will only help perpetuate the illusion of a commitment on the president's part to dialogue and shared governance. The president has offered NO persuasive rationale for splitting the college, and it seems clear to many of us that his actions are aimed solely at dividing (and punishing) potential opposition and protecting his own power. My personal preference would be that the Task Force recommend that COAS remain unified, and that if the president wishes otherwise he come up with a plan himself. In effect that's what he's likely to end up doing anyway, after all of this discussion and work on the part of faculty.
ReplyDeleteI agree completely with the last post. What the College wanted a month ago was to NOT split. We have lost a Dean who had principles and was wiling to put something at risk for them, who sat in a room when offered a problematic set of options and chose to walk out with his integrity. He did this at some financial cost to himself. I feel that to honor him and his excellent leadership, we should think about the integrity of the College. We have been disenfranchised. We have been punished. All of this is retribution for speaking out. Is it really honorable to now collude with those who lashed out viciously at us and clearly wanted to do nothing other than reduce, hurt, dominate?
ReplyDeleteNow we have a committee with which some are dissatisfied and that appears to be acting as a mediator between Dr. Sethna and the faculty, representing Dr. Sethna's vision and position to the faculty more than the faculty's position to Dr. Sethna. Dr. Sethna doesn't need a team of people to push his agenda on the college. He has the authority, leverage, and the courage to do whatever he wants without such a group. He already did.
What the task force/committee now appears to be engaging in is the illusion of shared governance. Is the following (which happened) "shared governance"? The committee meets with a group. The group makes clear what their wishes for the proposal are. A committee member counters: "Oh, but Dr. Sethna won't accept that, but we'll talk to him" (approximate quote only). Committee member then returns to his office and contacts Dr. Sethna to find out if he would accept what the faculty said they envision and returns the news to the faculty that he will not accept what they want. Thus the committee concludes, the ACTUAL wishes of the faculty cannot be part of the proposal. If Dr. Sethna already knows what he wants, let's just have it. Let's see his plan and stop all this pretense that we have any influence. In the end all the committee will do is prevent us from establishing further evidence that there is, if any, only questionable shared governance here at UWG.
Committee, why can we not put in the proposal EXACTLY what the faculty say they want. Do the 6 of you have special qualifications that allow you to dictate what should happen to all of us? Why do you think you should behave so paternalistically and tell us "it's best if we just send up something Dr. Sethna already has in mind and wants"? Prepare a proposal that represents what the faculty say they want, and then Dr. Sethna still has every right to go ahead and do what he wants, but at least we haven't all been compromised in the process. I apologize to those of you on the committee who may be offended by this. I do not think any of you have negative intentions, but I think it's time to STOP, THINK, and ASK why you see it as your job to consult constantly with Dr. Sethna to see if, before you put something in the proposal, he'll accept it. It suggests a kind of "Guess what I'm thinking and then give me that" game which I don't think we should play. It suggests that the structure is already there and we're just being forced to pretend to come up with it on our own.
Currently, it seems to some of us, good and well-respected members of the college are participating in the erosion of trust that was begun above us but is now right here at home, among us. I think this is a real pity after what George Kieh did for us in the past year. How fickle we are and how quickly we're willing to watch the unity he brought to the college dissolve. It seems a bit like a domestic abuse situation to me: the head of the household beats us and then we get up with a black eye and ask what he would like us to do so that he won't have to beat us again later and give us another black eye or maybe even two.