Some thoughts on what you've posted so far:
- "it's redundant to say 'Humanities and the arts' for the college name."
These aren't meant to be college names, just headings for the groups.
It seemed to make sense to list both words since there have been
suggestions to put the arts in their own college.
- "...why not develop colleges that mix disciplines that have some
common interests..."
We've kicked around some ideas like that, but couldn't come up with
any that satisfied the constraints and made sense for all 17 departments.
We're open to ideas, though, so suggest some groupings.
- "The history faculty are the best ones to determine which college
they should belong to..."
As long as we can satisfy the constraints, the alignments are fluid. A
problem is putting 2 big departments like English and History into the
same college and not having it much larger than the others.
- "How does Mass Comm end up in Social Sciences according to one
scenario and in the arts in another?"
I gather that Mass Comm is in a variety of colleges at different universities,
depending on the type of research and courses the particular departments
focus on.
- "Models for colleges like ours suggest that we either have one college or
just two."
We looked at lots of schools, and there are many different setups. Most
have one or two, but a good number have 3 or 4.
- "Why are we constrained to three minimum?"
That's one of the constraints set by Dr. Sethna.
- "the distribution above is predicated on splitting Mass Comm and Theater.
Is this something that department wants?"
From what I've heard, yes. Anyway, that's been in the works since before
the split of A&S.
- "Since Mass Comm and Theatre may be splitting, what about Geosciences?"
We wondered about them, too, so asked Dr. Hollabaugh when the task
force met with A&S chairs. He said that they have no interest in dividing.
- "If English and Philosophy split..."
We asked about that, too. They seem to be OK with their current structure
for now.
- "Has anyone done an actual cost analysis of this restructuring?"
Not that I know of. The task force will look carefully at budgets and
expenses over the next few months.
From what's I've heard, Art, Music, Theater, and Mass Comm. do want to be in a separate college, and History wants to be in Humanities. There's no reason to push them all into colleges that are their second choice, at best. Five less than satisfied departments is not a good start for a new structure. The recommendation should, if at all possible, reflect the desires of the departments, even if there is a bit of an extra cost.
ReplyDeleteAdmitting that I am no expert on the university budgeting process, but I cannot figure out how this is going to work out. Assuming these new colleges will be equitably resourced (personnel, money, etc.) in relation to existing colleges, where will the money come from? (Or is that a naive assumption at this point?) Is this question part of the discussion? Shouldn't it be?
ReplyDeleteWhat I still don't understand is exactly what determines "size" for these colleges. Is it the number of faculty? The number of departments? The number of programs? The number of majors? Core responsibilities (because this last is the only thing the upper admin actually cares about)?
ReplyDeleteIn Dr. Sethna's letter it says 3 (or more) colleges? Did something change with the "or more" statement?
ReplyDeleteWill we be privy to the budget discussions on this site?
ReplyDelete"A bit of an extra cost" isn't, I think, what we're talking about. Duplicating administrative units -- that is, increasing numbers of personnel and equipment (not even getting into the where-to-put-them question) -- is EXTREMELY expensive. I want to know where this money's going to come from and I want to hear that it's not coming from department budgets or students.
I am also curious about how you are thinking about representation: it seems like you are thinking numbers of faculty, but some comment-writers are talking about numbers of departments. And there is the issue of numbers of programs represented, majors, etc. as the commenter above writes.
ReplyDelete