Conversation on University Structure February 2017

Timeline Engage Academic Affairs staff and faculty leadership in defining guiding principles (October – November) Present initial ideas to faculty (December) Re-engage Academic Affairs leadership (December-January) Present to Department Chairs & Program Directors, Academic Affairs Committee of the Board of Regents, Faculty Senate, President’s Leadership Team, and faculty (January – February) Re-engaged Academic Affairs leadership (March) Focused conversations – campus-wide engagement and feedback (April) Decision for the footprint of new “university” structure – (to be determined)

Initial Questions What structural changes does moving to a “university” structure invite us to consider—and why? In theory, we could change our name without making any structural change. Does the status quo best serve our interests—why or why not? Are there specific problems with the current structure the transition to university is an opportunity to address? Whom do we need to hear from, and what will we want to understand better, as we consider these questions and possible change? We know already that words like “college” and “university” carry different meanings to different audiences. The same might be said of “school” and college.” What meanings do these terms have for us? Do we start this work with shared understandings?

toward a common language College academic unit composed of multiple departments and disciplines, often with a focus on undergraduate education in the liberal arts and sciences School academic unit organized around a specialized and focused discipline, usually includes both undergraduate and graduate programs Division (academic) organizational unit composed of multiple departments or offices characterized by similarities in purpose, approach, or methodology Department organizational unit housing curriculum specific to a discipline; where faculty qualified to teach in the discipline are appointed and reviewed Program undergraduate - an interdisciplinary network of faculty and curricula drawn from different departments, bringing together different or innovative disciplinary methodologies graduate – advanced course of study usually housed within one academic department, though can also be interdisciplinary (MAL)

guiding principles enhance support for high quality teaching and learning; any change should not redirect resources currently allocated to teaching and learning offer a common general education experience for undergraduate students; minimize any barriers to student movement across program/school/college boundaries; ensure opportunities for double majors, interdisciplinary study, and strong foundations in the liberal arts irrespective of school provide simple, logical, “outward facing” entry points for students, highlighting institutional strengths and making visible our diverse array of program offerings (traditional undergraduate, flexible undergraduate, and graduate) strengthen leadership of departments and programs (not expanding administration unnecessarily), to provide the leadership and resources necessary for strengthening academic quality and improving decisions regarding resource allocation, innovation, assessment, and program review create mechanisms for ensuring a sustainable mix of programs, relative to available resources and enrollments; improve responsiveness and adaptability in meeting world’s needs align with the vision of the Hagfors Center in cultivating and supporting both disciplinary knowledge and interdisciplinary collaboration; deepen commitment to integrating the liberal arts and professional study Increase efficiency in faculty governance, distributing work equitably and improving efficiency to reduce current points of bottleneck

What “problems” are we trying to solve What “problems” are we trying to solve? How might we enhance or strengthen what we already do? Current academic administrative structure is more aligned to the liberal arts college model, not the broad and diverse programs of a small university Decentralized support for graduate programs and AU across programs (on the “horizontal axis); little to no support for continuing studies – limited external visibility Clarify and strengthen structural relationships and responsibilities – both to support the work we already do and to position us for future innovation Grad program directors to department chairs Departments to AU and Rochester Deans as primary leaders of specific academic units Identify and remove barriers to innovation “Professional Studies” is diverse, undifferentiated – marginalized by culture, policy, governance structures, and practice

adapt faculty governance system to reduce bottlenecks, improve efficiency, and distribute shared work more equitably—perhaps by splitting work now handled by a single committee (like AAC) to curriculum committees within smaller academic units (Colleges/Schools) for routine issues, with university-wide review for consistency (not second guessing routine curricular decisions) strengthen faculty review and reward systems to ensure alignment with institutional mission, faculty status (TT/NTT), workload equity, and student-centered focus Other ideas? Let us know.

Office of Graduate and Continuing Studies Assumes Colleges and Schools headed by deans who report to Provost MODEL 1 – Conceptual/thematic MODEL 2 - disciplinary Model 1 Model 2 School of Culture and Society School of Ethics and Citizenship School of Scientific Inquiry College of Liberal Arts and Sciences College of Professional Studies Director of Undergraduate Education Office of Graduate and Continuing Studies Grad AU Non-degree programs Director of Grad Programs Director of Adult Learning Director of Continuing Education

College of Liberal Arts and Sciences College of Professional Studies MODEL 3 – hybrid of 1 & 2 College of Liberal Arts and Sciences College of Professional Studies School of Culture and Society School of Ethics and Citizenship School of Scientific Inquiry School of Business and Economics School of Heath Professions School of Education and Social Work Note: assumes the horizontal and vertical axes of the previous slide remain, although they do not appear here.

DRAFT MODELS FOR UNIVERSITY STRUCTURE DISCUSSION Provost School of Culture and Society School of Ethics and Citizenship School of Scientific Inquiry Provost College of Liberal Arts & Sciences College of Professional Studies School of Fine Arts School of Business & Economics School of Humanities School of Education & Social Work School of Social & Behavioral Science School of Health Sciences School of Natural Science & Math Division of Arts & Humanities School of Business & Economic Division of Natural & Social Sciences School of Health & Social Services School of Education & Leadership Division of Arts & Humanities School of Business & Economics Division of Natural Science & Math School of Education Division of Social & Behavioral Science School of Health Sciences School of Social Work