To: Those interested in the College of Agriculture’s Academic Plan
DRAFT for the 2004 to 2009 period
From:
Re: Comments on the plan
Comments
on our plan follow. These are all the
comments that I have received to date about the DRAFT Academic plan. The majority of the comments came from
members of the college’s faculty. Only a
couple of comments came from outside the college. This does not include comments from the
General
Comments:
Try to make that
second paragraph (and therefore the entire document) in the College Plan more
positive is my main concern. I think it
is important to outline the benefits of such change ~ i.e., how it will allow us to be better at what we
do, how we will attract more students, how it will make us more efficient, save
money, etc. It is important to change to
become more effective but not just make change for changes sake.
Does
it mean that if new resources are not found, the
My
sympathies! You really do have an
impossible task - catering to the academic end of your mission and the very
different extension, outreach part. At
least this is how it appears to an outsider who does not really understand how
an Ag college functions.
You use the word
"stakeholder" numerous times.
I think I know what the means - i.e., who is in that group, but you
might consider defining who the stakeholders are at the outset just so that is
clear to all.
I have read and studied the College plan and also compared progress
since the plan I helped develop under Steve Horn. The importance of initiating
the current plan calling for 4 working units is essential and even more logical
than was asked for under Steve’s tenure.
Renewable Resources is a proven example that consolidation of interest
groups is possible and productive. I would be the first to admit that all has
not been wine and cheese since our formation as a Renewable Resources team, but
I am convinced that we now serve the university and thus the state and region
with more focused expertise and authority. As a Wyoming native and concerned
about serving agriculture, associated natural resources, and accountability
to constrained UW budgets and allotted
personnel, I encourage you to follow the logic used to create reasonable change
by initiating this presented plan. I offer my support knowing full well that
faculty and associate deans when asked to fulfill change will think of their
selves, comfort zone, and unforgiving challenge of moving forward in a
different way. I personally have faced
this challenge and will have no problem supporting this plan to the clientele I
serve in the state in behalf of agriculture and natural resource issues. Please consider these segments of the public
are logical people and will work for you and the College as all is explained
and implemented because, like me, they will find the plan is designed to give
the College and UW more flexibility to better serve state needs. In closing, thank you for taking time to
consider my support and I will be glad to be of any help to you or in behalf of
clientele I serve. Good luck and stand tall.
I didn¹t get a
chance to comment on the draft plan before I left. I hope its
not too late. For what its worth, I want to say Hoooray! for you going ahead with
some changes that have been long needed in my opinion. You know I came here to
UW 7 years ago with no baggage of the history from how things got to be the way
they are now in the college. So, I really have no prejudice except that I want
to be part of a strong, growing, progressive college. The changes you have suggest will help us get momentum to build that new vision.
I'm really happy to see you going this direction, although I am sure you are already
hearing resistance from those who are basing their complaints and decisions on
history, tradition, and their own comfort level. Being from a dept that has undergone a lot of
change in the past few years, I’ve seen how out-right outrage and resistance
from the comfortable few can be reversed and we can progress to something
greater. Im hoping you can take the flak and plunge
forward. My best advise is to move quickly now and gain some momentum before
the resistance has time to throw too many obstacles into our path. I’m with you
and will support you in an way I can.
I know this is
probably a hard time. I thank you for your insight, fairness and strength to
take these steps. I hope you can move quickly to get some actions in place now,
before the wolf pack catches up with you (they will eventually eat someone
anyhow). It’s clear from the demographics of those that are hollering the
loudest that you are doing the right thing. I see many of the same kinds of
rebuttals as when range was forced to join with soils and ento.
But now, those same folks are with us and happy that they are part of a growing
and effective department....so drag the screamers along with you and don¹t
loose sight of the horizon.
I am not against
change or a negative person, I am not totally
convinced that the Plan will do the things mentioned. I want to change to become better at what I
do. I don't think anyone will have a
problem with this proposal if they can be convinced that it will accomplish
that task. I think the undergraduate and
graduate program initiatives that are outlined in the Plan are sound and can be
accomplished without changing the College structure. I think the Reproductive Biology and Fetal
Programming efforts are examples of the successful development of interdisciplinary
efforts in our current structure. The
key to their success is that people have wanted to be players in these
programs. Faculty have
to want to contribute. It doesn't matter
how they are aligned in Departments (they can be stacked one on top of the
other), they have to want to participate. Several years ago, we tried to pull a team of
Extension & Research faculty together to develop an Integrated Resource
Management (IRM) program. We also included
some veterinarians from out in the state. We had people from Plant Science, Range, Vet
Science, and Animal Science who were excited about the opportunities associated
with this approach to extension education.
However, one of the most critical components to the program was the
economists and they didn't want to be players so the program died on the
vine. I heard a similar comment about
our economists from a person from another institution just this summer
regarding the four-state ruminant consortium.
Since something wasn't their idea, they were throwing up all kinds of
roadblocks to keep the proposal from developing. Unfortunately we are only one deep and if
someone does not want to be a player, we often don't have alternatives. That is one of the concerns I have.
The transformation of Teaching, Extension and Research into Learning, Engagement, and Discovery comes across as a bit of hollow word-play – new names for the same old stuff. If we’re going to rename our three areas, let’s have some real fun. How about Preaching, Communion, and Epiphanies? Ok, just kidding. On a more serious note – how about this exercise. Have each department head and associate dean draw a Venn diagram (remember these from set theory – variously sized and overlapping circles representing sets?) with three circles representing Teaching, Extension and Research. The size of the circles and their overlap should reflect the current nature of these efforts. Then, redraw the figure showing the future and idealized sizes and relationships. Now, I’m going to guess that the Extension circle might well fit entirely within the Learning circle (with perhaps a tad of non-overlap – almost all Extension is Teaching but not all Teaching is Extension). If so, then maybe we should consider another radical restructuring – how about pooling the energy, administrations, resources, and evaluations of our two teaching efforts (students and public)?
My career has incorporated years of experience with Game and
Fish biology and related outreach work. During that
period, I experienced a wonderful opportunity of talking to a wide range of
folks across the state, including ranchers, resource managers, small business
operators, legislators, professional people, etc., about the current and future
issues of the state. The proposed focus areas for the
The reorganization in our Department a few years ago was uncomfortable
for many folks, but, I truly believe we, as a Department, emerged much stronger
as evidenced by our record of accomplishments. I can personally attest that the
reorganization was extremely beneficial for me professionally, for a number of
reasons that I’d be happy to relate to you some other time. I’ve discussed
these with Tom Thurow on several occasions. Without continuing on this endless
dialogue, I personally believe you’re right on track with the draft plan and
urge you to be strong and resist the negativism from personnel who desire to
maintain their “comfort zones”. I also
believe that an efficient re-organization and re-allocation of resources will
allow us to strengthen teaching, research, and extension efforts in areas of
major statewide interest.
I have finally had
the opportunity to go over the College plan draft on the UW website. I would like to complement you on what I
perceive to be a thoughtful, positive approach to securing a future for the
College. Hopefully a policy of rewarding
constructive efforts to move the College forward will engender support from
Heads and Faculty when the rather bleak alternative is continued erosion of
resources and opportunities. The timing
with the development of
SAREC can help the College's extension and research realign
efforts for the future to support state needs.
Given the demographics of the state (the prediction I have seen is that
half the
Focus:
I am not sure
where (if you decide to include it), but you might
consider including
something on the institutional Greater Yellowstone-Teton
Ecosystem
Initiative (GYTE). You have a mention
of this that starts bottom
of page 14 and
carries over to 15, but these (i.e., weed and animal disease)
are but two of many
issues that your faculty are already important players
in. I think the GYTE is shaping up to be an
important component for
SENR/ENR related
agendas - things like the Ag-Econ aspects of boundary
issues with the parks
(you have faculty in your college who are experts on
this already); The
host of resource management issues associated with
preservation, conservation,
biodiversity, wild animal-domesticated animal
interfaces... the list goes
on and on. This GYTE has hugely popular
political appeal at all
levels within the state - except if you are a
rancher in the NW corner
- but even they have to deal with the reality of
the various
situations. The GYTE, if it goes ahead
as envisioned will also
provide good "field
laboratory" for the Ecology Program.
We have tied our
Molecular Cellular stuff to the genetics and genomics
(on your page 12), and there is definite interest in A&S,
my Dept too, for
this.
The focus on
ability to achieve
distinction. We can do research here in
not be done elsewhere
in the world and that is how we can become competitive
nationally.
Another concern is
what affect these changes will have on our student numbers. The previous change in reduction of majors
had a negative effect. However we
structure ourselves, we have to market our programs and aggressively recruit
students. We will not be able to change
this and that and think students will simply come. I think you and your
Associates need to give some thought to implementation strategies because I
think that is one thing that will be asked when this goes public.
Transforming the College from 7 Departments to 4: Although this change is never explicitly stated, one doesn’t have to read very far to understand that this change is afoot – and what a great and grand idea it is! The four fields/themes/areas/groups (you used every conceivable term except “departments”!) make rather good sense, given current faculty, programs, and resources. This is a bit like evolution – you can only change what you currently have (a bit of creationism would be great good fun for the College, but wiping the slate clean would mean firing all the faculty, staff, and administration).
The rationale of “comparative advantage” is compelling in most of the six identified areas (that are then folded into the four fields). One could make a strong argument for strength in reclamation, life sciences, and natural resource policy/management. A rather weaker case could be made for integrated plant/animal systems (do we actually have anyone doing this, any nationally recognized programs, or any evidence of “comparative advantage” other than a genuine and laudable wish to excel in this area?) and economics (there are pockets of excellence in Ag/Applied Economics, but an argument for “comparative advantage” relative to other programs in the region is a bit of a stretch). And, to be honest, probably no case for “comparative advantage” can be made for sustainable landscapes (indeed this term is rather peculiar and undefined – do we mean existing/natural landscapes of range and forest [if so, then perhaps we really do have an advantage in some senses] or anthropogenic landscapes [if so, then we have no program whatsoever that is even regionally recognized or productive in this area]?).
As for the four new departments – well done! The core concept is absolutely on the mark. I’d only suggest four possible refinements. First, there are elements of Natural Resource Economics that would make far more sense integrated with Renewable Natural Resources than with Rural Economics. Second, Renewable Natural Resources seems oddly named. Is this somehow contrasted with Renewable Unnatural Resources – why not either Renewable Resources or Natural Resources? Third, I presume that much of Vet Science would be in Molecular and Cellular Life Sciences – and given the strength in animal health perhaps it would be nice to somehow work the notion of “health” into this new department name. Fourth, I can’t quite see where Family and Consumer Sciences fits – none of these folks are economics or ecologists, so Rural and Natural Resource Economics and Rural Ecology (boy is that a mouthful!) seems a poor match.
The notion of faculty self-selecting departments is certainly intriguing. I like the idea of the new departments being a marketplace for faculty to choice. However, with such broadly-defined units there does not seem to be a whole lot of sense in split appointments. The 75-25 split is innovative and rational, but it seems most appropriate for structures in which departments are rather small and disciplinary (like now). So, if the College goes berserk and defies the administration to merge departments (a plausible scenario), then really push hard for allowing/encouraging (even requiring!) faculty to develop interdepartmental 75-25 splits.
The
“Focus” section has some logical problems in the argument and
presentation. The text seems to contend
that we will develop niches to exploit our comparative strengths (makes sense
to me) which include “statewide needs” (makes no sense to me). How can a need be a strength? Indeed most often an unmet need is evidence
that we may well have an area of weakness.
As for the outline sections A and B, they seem fragmented and
unrelated. What does section A have to do with anything (other than a listing of
unrelated technologies)? Section B
states that the identified areas constitute fields of distinction, but the
listed concepts are not fields in any meaningful sense (e.g., is there a
coherent field called “Life Sciences and Critical Areas of Science and
Technology”?). These putative fields are
really just some of the “Areas of Distinction” identified in the UW Plan, so
why try to create “fields” out of these broad, ill-defined areas? Finally, how can we possibly “maintain”
“excellence” in an area which has no faculty, no record of funding, no evidence
of research productivity, and no instructional effort (i.e., native plant
horticultural systems)?
Incorporate
reclamation ecology into the college focus areas.
Way too many focus
areas. Narrow the focus.
I’d like to suggest that the College consider strengthening extension
and research efforts in a major statewide interest issue, wildlife habitat
management, if future opportunities become available. Wildlife and habitat
management is a high profile issue in
Curriculum:
Thanks for the
nice job of handling the G-bio stuff. It
is clear, but
with out enough info
to lock anything in for now. By the time
your next
version is due the ad hoc
committee will have a final report.
Assessment:
Under the Assessment section, I would have to disagree with the notion that “program assessment is better understood than student assessment in our college.” Maybe I don’t understand these terms, but it sure seems to me that we have a whole lot more experience and expertise in assessing students than in assessing programs. Indeed, we seem to wallow aimlessly in terms of assessing our academic programs – what are the standards, goals, criteria, purposes, etc.?
Graduate Education:
Under
your germane issue. I am about
as certain as I can be that the
Interdisciplinary
Graduate Ecology Program is going to become reality within
the next, say 18
months - probably sooner. I suggest you
think about
linking your college ecology program to this
broader campus initiative.
Consolidating 22 (really?!) graduate programs into 5: Despite some intriguing possibilities, this
part of the plan seems the least well-conceptualized and justified – and it has
the potential of becoming an academic train wreck. In this regard, I’d suggest two stumbling
blocks will need to be addressed. First,
the currently emerging Ecology graduate program is rather explicitly
non-inclusive of the sorts of faculty and programs that the College might
consider bundling into this field. Even
a quick read of the Ecology program’s process and philosophy will make it clear
that trying to integrate many of our current faculty into that effort is a
recipe for explosive conflict. Second,
the rationale for this radical condensation is not at all convincing. There is no evidence that “resource
constraints” make any (let alone all) of the existing programs
unsustainable. Moreover, the
consolidation is not being effectively “sold” to faculty (what do they or their
students have to gain from the agony of such a dramatic change?). From my perspective, there is no discernible
national trend towards interdisciplinary graduate programs – rather, the vast
majority of MS- and PhD-level positions still call for deep, disciplinary
knowledge along with sufficient breadth for creative and collaborative
interactions. Interdisciplinary work
most often emerges as one’s career develops (a bit like international work) –
and interdisciplinary degrees run the very real risk of producing students who
lack depth, critical knowledge, or employable identity. In short, without some far more compelling
rationale, I would anticipate a horrendous battle in the course of reducing
graduate programs. I suspect that the
primary motivation/rationale is the President’s affection for the “
Outreach:
Outreach efforts
from other sources on campus will help break down some
barriers that isolate the
Ag college on campus and will redefine the College
as an integral part
of UW and a team player on campus
Redefining of
resource allocation will give us strong basis for arguing for
support with central administration.We need to change the image of the
college with
One pet concern of
mine, as you know, is the greenhouse, and Im praying
that
you move quickly to
designate its administration to the college, perhaps to
AES so that as a
college resource, faculty have equitable access and voice
in its operation in
the future. It could be transformed into a showcase for
research and teaching if
it were administered fairly and with progressive
planning.
I believe the
direction Extension has taken is sound.
I am confident those changes will allow them to be more effective at
responding to their clientele.
A few years ago (1992-1997) there was a university Outreach Council created and led by Dr. Judy Powell. This council included representatives from every college as well as the major outreach providers: Library, SEO, SES, UW Casper College, SBDC, WIND and CES. I served as the representative from CES. We were tasked with coordinating/complimenting all outreach efforts by UW. One suggestion was for CES to provide the local linkage for the other UW outreach efforts. This met with varying degrees of resistance from the other outreach providers for several reasons: A perception that CES was Ag. and therefore not representative of the greater university. CES was not knowledgeable of the complex nature and mandates of the other outreach providers. The other outreach providers were already well connected to their local constituency and didn’t need another entity confounding their efforts. (“We’re doing very well, thank you!”). A perception (and in some cases a correct perception) that the local CES educators and office were not as well connected to, and knowledgeable of, the local environment as they led others to believe. Whether these factors are correct or not, perception is often reality.
I think for CES to be effective in supporting UW’s greater outreach efforts, several items need to be addressed and/or understood: Determine the acceptability of the other colleges and outreach providers to CES helping in their outreach efforts. Determine the type of help, if any, the other entities would like from CES. Eliminate the attitude that CES is THE outreach provider. We are one of many. Ascertain central administration’s opinion of the role of CES in the greater UW outreach. Make sure that CES has the structure, resources and positive attitude to deliver what is promised. Adopt the attitude of how CES can help the other providers instead of “expecting” the other outreach providers to help CES. Realize and accept the fact that a climate of consulting and fee for service is prevalent and expected within the UW culture.
Diversity:
Im especially
supportive of moving forward relative to diversity in the college and am
personally grateful that you recognized that hiring one or two women is not all
there is to diversity issues in a college where most students are women.
Diversity is much more. I think enhancing real diversity in our college is one
of the most apparent ways we can visibly demonstrate to other colleges and
central administration that this is truly a college of the future and not the
same
Resources and facilities:
The consolidation
of all research facilities under the Dean's office provides a more transparent
system than is currently available.
This is again a very progressive move that will help ensure that the
future of our college. It will help
eliminate the problems that have resulted in the recent loss of solid well
funded research programs and make facilities move available to all faculty.
I think that
combining the College Depts. into four is a very sound, far thinking, and
modern approach to meeting the needs of the people of
Excellent mention
of the
Science Lab
Teaching Facility)! This is one that all
three colleges need to
push - in-your-face
- with the upper administration. Tom B. is very
sympathetic to the project,
but I think Dubois is the one who needs
convincing. It is great that this is getting good
exposure in a number of
plans.
Let me take this
opportunity to convey my 100% support for the proposals in the proposed new
Academic Plan. It makes incredibly good sense to ag
In the same vein,
ag
A couple of comments on page 17. The
first is to write the full name of the Arthropod-Borne Animal Diseases
Research Laboratory instead of using ABADRL the first time that it is
used.
There are five BSL-3 facilities within ARS--one of these (
The uniting into 4
areas of distinction is great! it will give us the
strength and collaboration we have long needed in our programs and secures some
critical faculty positions that may otherwise be lost to lack of critical mass.
Depts that were at risk, may
be effectively saved with this move.
The case for the upgraded Greenhouse facilities is rather weak. This facility is not critical to research in three areas of distinction by any plausible measure. Here’s an idea – if the Greenhouse is central to such strong and vital programs in the College, then surely the facility has the potential to be a self-sustaining enterprise! That is, if productive, externally-funded research depends on the Greenhouse then one could quite reasonably argue that bench/facility fees included in grants and contracts should easily pay the operating (and improvement) costs of the Greenhouse. Why would we need to subsidize a facility that is essential to our strongest and most productive programs (indeed, one might even suggest that the need for College subsidies is compelling evidence of a program’s or facility’s weakness)?
One might well look long and hard for administrative efficiencies and reductions that would be commensurate with those being suggested for departments and programs. In fact, there may be some opportunities for administrative reductions, mergers, and consolidations – and perhaps these opportunities should be clearly stated and even a couple of tentative examples offered (e.g., going from 7 to 4 departments would mean having 3 fewer department heads – right?).
Xxx