Search This Blog

Monday, September 20, 2010

Dean's Plan

Bloggie thought this might be of general interest and solicits comments.

Note that Dean McClelland is said to have presented this plan to President Jacobs this morning. Further note that Year One calls for the abolition of Arts and Sciences Council (the Vengance of Jake?); Year Two calls for the absorption of the Education College (where will poor Tom Brady lay his head?); and Year Three adds certain Engineering Departments.

Civilly yours,



Anonymous said...

So, is the plan to fight one bad idea with a different bad idea?

Yr humble & obt

John Dickinson.

Anonymous said...

First, the plan includes keeping A & S as one college so is a major improvement over the multiplication of colleges in the plan from the small presidential group. Second, to be fair, it creates councils for each of the two schools and a joint executive committee. The two councils might even meet together some or all of the time. Putting Education in A & S has some advantages, though does create challenges - it is worth talking about. We need to realize that this Friday may very well bring an edict that viritually no A & S faculty member likes - the president is scheduled to announce his decision that morning - and he can do almost anything that he wants to do. These are very troubling times. Perhaps it is time for a compromise.

Anonymous said...

I find it very interesting that after the merger, the two faculty senates had to merge, but in this plan the A&S council has to split. Where is the logic?

Anonymous said...

I suspect that the logic is one of retribution.

Anonymous said...

Isn't the Arts and Science a Faculty Construct? What right does an Adminstrator have to split it or reform it?

Anonymous said...

Why would Engineering be willing to give up its Chemical Engineering Department to this organization? It seems to me that Chemical Engineering is one of the better Engineering Departments and removing it from Engineering might break up its ability to be successful under its accreditation body.

Anonymous said...

"Isn't the Arts and Science a Faculty Construct? What right does an Adminstrator have to split it or reform it?"
Do you think that the CommTech faculty voted to shut down that college? The ultimate legal authority of the university is the board of trustees. If they say that A & S is to be split up into 3 colleges with creative names, it will happen.

Anonymous said...

I do not see how the College of Engineering would be willing to allow Chem. Eng. and Envir. Eng. out of that college. They are the two strongest departments in engineering.

Second, this plan is still similar to the original one. It maintains the title "College of Arts and Sciences", but still incorporates associate deans; still creating a division between faculty and the administration. Also, it is still a plan for a top-heavy administration.

Anonymous said...

A couple of observations.

1. Why would the proposed College need a senior associate dean? This is an unnecessary position.

2. What about an assistant dean for student services (i.e., advising, graduation, etc..)

3. The Associate Dean for Research should not be a scientist per se. Likewise, the title should be research and creativity.

4. I assume a professional budget office would still exist and the current AD positions in education would be eliminated? However, a director of education student services--licensing--would need to report the assistant dean for student affairs.

5. Why has the dean chosen to maintain sub-divisions in the arts & letters school?

in total, this proposal has the potential to flatten the admnistration and potential reduce costs. Moreover, the multiple council may strengthen shared governance as colleague associate deans would be more accountable to their "local" council

Concern Alum (and current university administrator)

Anonymous said...

So the other plan with all the goofy names was just a smoke screen for this plan?

Anonymous said...

This looks less horrible than other plans, but I still wonder: What problem is it supposed to solve?

Anonymous said...

I suspect all this reorganization proposal nonsense is and has been a "done deal"" for quite some time. All those let's-pretend-democracy-stakeholder meetings. It's like the old give-em-a-fair trial and hang-em cliche.

UT needs a presidential search. And we (faculty) should also approach current gubernatorial candidates about restructuring the board--at least getting some of them elected, and about doing REAL searches according to established public hiring practices; and getting rid of these buddy-system deans and the current president.

Anonymous said...

Approaching gubernatorial candidates? Come on, folks.

Strickland has been in love with Jacobs since he was elected and is down in the polls by double digits. And you think Kasich is going to listen to university professors? Kasich, if anything will be upset trustees haven't pushed hard enough to make universities more business-like.

And you're all forgetting the No. 1 reason this plan is doomed from the start: Judith Herb gave $15 million dollars to put her name on a college, not on a school within another college. Engineering will never give up its programs.

Maybe the college is split, but there's no chance UT gives up $15M to reorganize, not when the Herbs are still out there with more potential money to give.

Jim Nemeth said...

When nothing else works, SING OUT!

Little boxes of restructuring,
Made of ticky-tacky,
Little boxes, little boxes,
Little boxes, all the same.
There's a green one and a pink one
And a blue one and a yellow one
And they're all made of ticky-tacky
And they all look just the same!

(apologies to Malving Reynolds)

Anonymous said...

Chemical engineering department "willing"? Since when has "willing" been any criteria for this administration to do what it wants? We should just lay back and enjoy it, because it is going to happen anyway.

Anonymous said...

It interesting that these charts have lead to a discussion about what to do with the College of Engineering. It seems like these are the conclusions:

BioEngineering will go to Medicine,
Mechanical Engineering to Business
Electrical Engineering and Computer Science may be disbanded or sold off to Owens,
Enineering Technology transferred to Owens and, of course,

you have read the fate of Chemical and Environmental Engineering.

It seems that no one wants to claim Civil Engineering at this time so it remains in the College of Engineering.

Anonymous said...

Your justification for this rant is a stretch, None. Just give it a rest. Paste a stickynote that says "publish or perish" on your refrigerator door. As your colleague I worry about you, though our relationship has become strained.

Anonymous said...

Well I guess the discussion on the dean's plan and the split of A & S Council is moot. The president just announced that A & S will be split into 3 separate colleges. Shows how valuable it was for the A & S Council and the Faculty Senate to speak against the plan. It will be interesting to see how the North Central accreditation team views a major administrative change for colleges over the unanimous objections of two established faculty governance bodies.