Roger N. Johnson (TAS) Statement on Academic Structure Reposted 12/02/03

Proposal for A New Academic Structure: The Consolidation Model

(Units and Convening Groups are consolidated)

 

 

Provost

 

            A.  Dean, School of Arts and Sciences (about 10 programs)

                        1.   Program in Humanities

                        2.  Program in Communications

                        3.  Program in Human Environment

                              (possibly called Metropolitan Studies)

                        4.   Program in Physical Sciences

                        5.   Program in Biological Sciences

                        6.   Program in Behavioral Sciences (or studies)

                        7.   Program in Fine Arts

                        8.   Program in International Studies

                        9.   Other

                        10.  Other

                                                                       

            B.   Dean,   School of Business (about 5 programs)

                        5 programs, similar to those now existing

 

            C.   Dean of Graduate Programs, Professional Studies,

                   and Interdisciplinary Education

                        Graduate programs,  nursing,   teacher education, and

                        Special interdisciplinary programs

 

(Note:  Each program is headed by a “Program Chair” who would be an elected faculty member with half-time release time.   There are no “schools” other than those listed above.   Convening groups of individual disciplines could continue as necessary as pedagogical groups without any administrative functions since programs and program chairs would assume all duties of curriculum, budget, and personnel.  There would be only two levels of meetings:  I. program level;   II.   All-college level (faculty assembly or faculty senate.   Program Chairs report to their Deans, and the Deans report to the Provost.)

 

 

Notes

 

1.   Most schools would be interdisciplinary but would involve only a few closely related disciplines with overlapping academic programs.

2.   Faculty members could belong to more than one program;   voting rights to be determined..

3.   Attempts should be made to make the programs about equal in size although this is not possible in some cases.

4.   There would be no unit councils or unit council meetings.   120 credits would be saved by eliminating the current 5 deans.    Students would declare a major but they would not be forced to  have “membership” in a school.

5.   There would be no release time for convening groups.   Release credits from the 31 convening groups would go toward the new half-time program chairs and for new faculty lines.

6.   There would be far fewer meetings and more open times on Wednesdays.   The programs would meet more often than the present convening groups but there would be no regularly scheduled unit councils or convening group meetings. 

7.   Each program would decide all issues relating to personnel, curriculum, budget, etc. One entire layer of bureaucracy is eliminated.

8.    Many details remain to be worked out, particularly about the number of programs, their names, and what they cover.   Faculty will sort out programs that do not fit into tidy categories.  

9.    There are ample opportunities for interdisciplinary education within and between programs,  and the opportunity to organize special interedisciplinary programs under the Dean of Graduate Programs,  Professional Studies, and Interdisciplinary education.   The vast majority of programs at Ramapo are now disciplinary so it is no longer appropriate to force an interdisciplinary structure (“unit”) on all programs.  Interdisciplinary education can be accomplished without interdisciplinary structure.

 

Advantages

 

            1.   The current “school” structure is outdated.  It was designed in 1970 when the only mission of the college was interdisciplinary education.  The new system does not have departments and continues to incorporate interdisciplinary education since interdisciplinary education does not require an interdisciplinary structure.   The new academic structure is more closely in tune with student needs and with academic programs (rather than based around faculty political alliances).

            2.    The current schools are way too large and cumbersome to be effective.   Many faculty members do not even know the people in their own unit.  Many faculty members in the same units have nothing to do some of their “closest” colleagues.   The proposed programs would be much smaller and more cohesive.

            3.    The new system would end much of the overlap, duplication, and competition between schools and between convening groups and schools.   The new programs would have more distinct identities with less overlap so there would be less competition,   less political intrigue,  and fewer possibilities for end runs.  

            4.    Personnel policies would be far more equitable and sane.   Faculty members would finally be judged by their own peers.   Each program would do all their own hiring, retention, promotion, and tenure as well as allocate research and travel funds.

            5.    The proposed system gives more power to faculty members and less power to deans.   Program chairs would be elected faculty members.   Half-time program chairs would be powerful voices (unlike the current conveners who are relatively weak).   The proposed programs would be much stronger than the current convening groups.

            6.     Programs could meet frequently, perhaps every other week.   The only other meetings to attend would be Faculty Assembly meetings once a month.

            7.     All the release time currently allocated to 5 full time deans and 31 conveners would be saved.  It is estimated that this could generate 3 new faculty lines.                      

            8.     The new model will increase faculty responsibility and power.   It should energize newer and younger faculty members who are disenchanted with the present system and also bring back senior faculty members who have tuned out.

 

Disadvantages

 

            1.     Many prefer the status quo and resist   any kind of change.   Institutional rigidity is a strong force.  Many are sentimental about maintaining old and outmoded “traditions.”

            2.     Some people would stand to lose their power and positions, notably deans and conveners.  On the other hand,  there would be new opportunities for program chairs.

             3.       Some faculty members will not end up with their best friends in the same program.

 

Timing

 

            This is an excellent time to change the academic structure because:

            1.     The college has changed dramatically in its size, composition, and mission.   The academic structure should reflect the 21st century,   not 1970.  Many newer faculty members find the old system of schools stifling,   inequitable,  rife with political intrigue,  and counterproductive for high quality academics.

            2.      For years it was argued that we should wait for a new president and new provost.   We now have both and they seem ready to consider change.

            3.      It would be best to make the course load adjustment switch and the academic structure switch at the same time.

            4.      It would be best to coordinate the change with the complicated process of converting all the college databases,  a process which will soon begin.

            5.      The state fiscal problems force us to operate more efficiently.   This means more resources for academics,   less for administrative overhead.  

            6.       The Byzantine morass of committees and impossible meeting schedules has made rational decision making impossible.