As previously announced, the Work Session originally scheduled for 21 May has been changed to a Special Meeting. Basically, the 11 June meeting has a very full agenda (including approval of the budget and personnel roster), and that date will also serve as the ribbon-cutting ceremony for the Space Science Center.
As promised, here is an abbreviated agenda for the Special Meeting on 21 May (9:00 a.m. Riggle Room):
1. Ratify Awarding of Honorary Doctor's Degree
2. Ratify Spring Graduates
3. Approve Amended Campus Master Plan
4. Approve Reappointment of Auditing Firm
5. Approve Minimum Scope of the Annual Audit
6. Approve 2009-10 Tuition Rates
(The only item that probably needs an explanation is #3. The current Campus Master Plan calls for the construction of a new warehouse to replace the Cowden Building. As it turns out, the University is able to buy an existing warehouse for less money, and the Campus Master Plan needs to reflect this change.)
Do note that while this Special Meeting is public, the Board will probably also go into Executive Session to discuss some personnel matters, including the process for the President's evaluation.
I hope that you're enjoying some time off.
Ron
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Thanks for informing us of the upcoming meetings.
We really need to re-visit the Curriculum Audit and how programs were categorized.
The whole process of placing each academic program at MSU into a specific category relating to enhancement or elimination was a fraud and a sham. There was no one set of criteria utilized for all programs. Different colleges used different criteria. Even if my program was slated for "enhancement" it means nothing when the whole process was not consistent or appropriate.
For example, the whole College of Humanities threw out the standard criteria and based where they placed programs upon on other qualitative factors. Here is a quote from the Humanities report;
"… Rather than distinguish between programs requiring "resource reallocation," "continuous improvement," "modifications," or "conditions," programs were categorized by first considering the nature and extent of issues or concerns needing to be addressed in an effort to strengthen the program, and then the relationships of weighted criteria to recommendations made, or estimated costs of implementing strategies..."
It continues:
"…The academic dean and department chairs did not define categories by definitions… The reason for this decision was partially due to the vagueness in meaning between programs…and to the fact that several programs in the Arts would require resource allocation to improve regardless of category distinction… Instead, programs were placed in categories based upon application of weighted criteria during the audit process, SWOT analyses, estimated expenses needed to achieve strategies for program improvement, and nature of issues needing to be discussed and resolved beyond the Caudill College of Humanities."
The report goes on to explain the listing of the categories of the programs in the Humanities. Did every college use this same logic in placing programs into their respective categories? What was in the part about …issues needing to be discussed and resolved beyond the college...?
The process and results are not academically sound or consistent. Programs were slated into categories due to various non-standard methods and opinion. This is the same report that created the College of Regional and Global Studies!
If our academic research was sent to a peer reviewed journal with this mismatch of data analysis it would be red lined and sent back. The bottom line is that the whole enhancement issue is arbitrary. The categorization of the academic programs on our campus comes down to opinion and a popularity contest.
This process is a fraud and a sham. It is a divisive measure without a sound academic basis. These categories should be dismissed.
Thanks, Reader, for these comments.
I'm not entirely certain what can be done at this point, but your comments do help to re-focus discussion on what is truly important as we move forward.
While we have received some useful information on various practical matters (relocation, leadership, annual evaluation), most of the focus thus far has been on re-organization rather than on what it might mean to "enhance" a program or to "maintain and improve" a program (etc.). Given the state's economic forecast, we certainly cannot count on increased funding (and it is possible we may see even more budget cuts).
Thanks, Reader, for returning our focus to where it ought to be: strengthening programs.
One has to remember that the College of Business operates on a whole different structure than the rest of the colleges at MSU. There is nothing similar in how the COB pays their faculty or how they manage faculty workload with that of any other college on campus. COB faculty members only teach three courses per semester and their pay scale is considerably higher than faculty in other disciplines (almost double some disciplines). More power to them. We should all be so fortunate.
COB has had department chairs that made over $100,000 with only a couple of faculty members to supervise, while other department chairs across campus can supervise from 20-30 faculty members with up to five different discipline programs. Now with the IRAPP program joining the COB they will have even less in common with other colleges. IRAPP faculty members only teach two classes per semester. Rumor also has it their former dean has used his dictatorial powers to declare himself coordinator of the department with the IRAPP faculty in it so he can still maintain control. That whole situation has not been explained to anyone and is not transparent in any regard. This is nothing new and seems to be standard operating procedure for that part of our university.
One can't blame the COB for trying to work out better deals for their people. Throw in the IRAPP component and the whole thing becomes a black hole of inequity. I think the whole university should follow whatever lead the COB takes. Everyone should only teach two to three courses per semester and should get a giant raise in salary (some doubling to meet COB/IRAPP standards). We all should become coordinators of something to provide us status. We need to know more about how this works.
Go for it COB.
Post a Comment