Brief Description of the Matrix Model (Michael Edelstein as of 1.6.04)

This model attempts to adjust the existing structure to be more mission

centered in ways that embellish founding concepts.

Problem 1: Schools have become large divisional administrative units rather

than academic learning communities. Solution: Current Schools are therefore

replaced in two ways:

         1. smaller learning groups or centers are the primary faculty

address. These serve as academic and curricular communities of two types:

                 A. Interdisciplinary in makeup with an interdisciplinary

curriculum organized around a theme or problem-orientation

                 B. Professional or disciplinary in makeup but with a

curriculum that features interdisciplinary questions or issues faced by the

profession or discipline.

         These groups may absorb at least one large or several smaller

existing convening groups or be entirely new entities. They will serve as

the primary community locus for faculty.

         2. Two divisional schools would remain for administrative

purposes, a School of Liberal Arts and a School of Professional Studies

(chosen to span our Comprehensive rather than only Liberal Arts focus and

the fact that Professional programs are likely to share accreditation demands).

Problem 2. Conveners lack the authority to truly run programs well. Deans

are overwhelmed by doing administrative tasks while compensating for the

gaps in the conveners' roles. Solution: The Learning Groups will be headed

by Directors having much more clout than existing conveners yet less

responsibility than Deans. Directors are of the faculty. The two Schools

will be headed by Deans who are primarily addressing administrative issues

arising from the Provost's Office and serve as faculty advocates there.

Problem 3. Current crossing of programs by faculty and of Schools by

programs is perceived as uncoordinated and unmanageable. Solution:  Faculty

will belong to one primary learning group (interdisciplinary or

professional/disciplinary) and at least one additional secondary group.

Personnel issues will be run through a primary learning group. Rather than

protecting the exclusive use of a faculty member by their primary group,

the process will facilitate and encourage the work of all faculty in

multiple groups but in an organized manner that optimizes the needs of the

overall curriculum. Conflicts arising from multiple group membership by a

given faculty member will be negotiated by the Director of that faculty

member's primary group and the Directors of their other groups. Issues

arising from majors being in multiple Schools are rendered moot by the new

structure.

Problem 4: There is a lack of transparency for students of the overall

curriculum. Solution: A new Integrative Studies Curriculum combines

features of the Gen Ed program with core courses from the Learning Groups

with a focus on the mission pillars. As a result, requirements are

streamlined and a coherent program is offered that uses and showcases core

offerings from actual program groups. The student moves from integrative

studies directly into their majors.

Problem 5: How are Overlay programs integrated with academic learning

communities? Solution: A series of existing and new Centers or Institutes

are created to promote faculty research (i.e. Flex activities) and

programming or to offer certification programs or academic support

functions. Faculty would be encouraged to belong to at least one of these

beyond their curricular learning communities. For example, faculty might

belong to the Roukema Center, The Sustainability Center/Environmental

Institute, the new Teaching Institute, the new SAB center, etc. In some

cases, such programs might be a secondary address.