1. Conversation on University Structure
February 2017

2. 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)

3. 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?

4. 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)

5. 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

6. 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

7. 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.

8. 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

9. 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.

10. 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