Preamble to Preliminary Recommendations (April 12, 2004)

This preamble provides a glimpse into ASEC’s intensive work and an appreciation for the context within which committee members have been operating. As such, it is integral to our preliminary recommendations to be shared later this week.

Our overriding obligation in working toward recommendations for a possible academic reorganization is to come to conclusions that, on balance, are best for the academic division as a whole and for the future of the institution. This required that we consult with and balance the sometimes diverse perspectives of a wide range of constituencies, such as students, the deans, and faculty at large.

Brief Review of Process

We have listened carefully to those who attended our student and faculty forums, and to the deans at a lively panel discussion. We have examined all input submitted by individual faculty at the in-service workshop, and by convening groups responding to a special survey. We have read all commentary posted to the ASEC webpage. We have reviewed massive amounts of institutional information and data. And we have examined the structure of colleges and universities both similar and dissimilar to our institution. Ranking high in our considerations—if not uppermost in our minds—has been the quality of the academic experience, prominent educational needs, and long-term interests of our students.

Having traded ideas, discussed our own emerging viewpoints, and considered a spectrum of information, perspectives, and models, we worked toward general agreement on many of the issues within our charge. In the time remaining, we are attempting to work through some final issues in an effort to approximate consensus on matters still under discussion. As we progress rapidly toward our final report, we will continue to report at Faculty Assembly and unit council meetings. We remain open to further input and ideas.

Central Issues of Concern

Recurring areas of concern factored highly into our emerging recommendations: that students sometimes identify weakly with their majors as academic communities and with faculty in convening groups; that convening groups are lacking considerably in academic power (resources, decision making, and so on); that academic accountability is often laterally inconsistent (across conveners and convening groups) and may in some cases be vertically nonexistent (between convening groups and their respective schools); and that certain aspects of the current structure are opaque and confusing to students, external stakeholders, and even faculty, staff, and administrators. Other issues factored into our discussions, including a broad range of perceived strengths and weaknesses associated with the current structure.

Fundamental Changes in the Academic Landscape

Considering the central issues identified above, and given the totality of our deliberations to this point in time, it has become increasingly clear that the academic structure should be changed in some fundamental ways. As profound as this may sound, modifying the structure in itself may have only a modest impact on the academic environment, including academic culture, processes, and outcomes. Restructuring must therefore be coordinated with the implementation of other decisions, such as the course load adjustment (CLA) plan. All activities associated with curricular modifications (in General Education, school cores, and majors) should be designed to dovetail with and support a reformulated structure. These decisions and endeavors collectively represent an entire configuration of emerging initiatives that are expected to result in significant improvements in the academic landscape.

Partly in anticipation of this new landscape, and partly due to the explicit questions in our charge, our recommendations reflect seemingly inextricable relationships of critical importance—relationships between structure and curriculum delivery; structure and academic decision making; structure and academic leadership; structure and human resources; structure and financial resources; and structure and external considerations. Our recommendations do not, however, deal with the role and structure of the Provost’s Office per se, nor the relationship between academic structure and faculty governance. These latter issues are also ripe for examination in light of the changing academic landscape.