1 / 5

Ad Hoc Committee of Chairs of Faculty Standing Committees Lynn Cherry —Speaker of the Faculty Dan Greenberg —Curriculum

Ad Hoc Committee of Chairs of Faculty Standing Committees Lynn Cherry —Speaker of the Faculty Dan Greenberg —Curriculum Committee Jon Hakkila —Graduate and Continuing Education Devon Hanahan —Faculty Compensation Committee Tom Heeney —Budget Committee

flynn
Télécharger la présentation

Ad Hoc Committee of Chairs of Faculty Standing Committees Lynn Cherry —Speaker of the Faculty Dan Greenberg —Curriculum

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Ad Hoc Committee of Chairs of Faculty Standing Committees Lynn Cherry—Speaker of the Faculty Dan Greenberg—Curriculum Committee Jon Hakkila—Graduate and Continuing Education Devon Hanahan—Faculty Compensation Committee Tom Heeney—Budget Committee Mark Hurd—Educational Technology Committee Todd McNerney—Faculty Welfare Committee Bob Mignone—General Education Bob Perkins—Academic Planning Committee Bob Podolsky—Faculty Advisory Committee Faculty Survey Timeline 23 Oct 2013: First meeting of committee 18 Nov: Idea of survey hatched at second meeting of committee 1 Dec: First draft distributed among committee members for revisions 10 Jan 2014: Survey made available to faculty, closed on 15 Jan 27 Jan: Survey responses and Executive Summary made available to BOT Survey Documents: Likert Responses (408), Comments (268), Executive Summary

  2. Executive Summary SECTION 1: Potential changes to the mission of the College and value of the current mission (Survey Parts I & II) Comment themes • CofC offers a unique educational experience for students in SC • Most faculty aspire to remain within the liberal arts model • Movement away from liberal arts model undermines our strengths • Makes us less competitive and responsive to local and regional needs • Favor informed, deliberate, and limited growth

  3. Executive Summary SECTION 2: Comparison of models (Survey Parts I & II) Model 1: Maintaining the College of Charleston as a liberal arts institution with some limited expansion of graduate programs, as outlined in the College’s current strategic plan, would… Model 2:The incorporation of the College of Charleston into a research university would… Comment themes • Resources would be inadequate to create a high-quality research institution • Merger would be a financial setback and put burden on the backs of faculty • The academic missions and cultures of CofC and MUSC are incompatible • Our competitive strength is to maintain a distinctive undergraduate experience • Some faculty embrace changes possible with merger and growth in research

  4. Executive Summary SECTION 3: Future leadership of the College (Survey Part III) Comment themes • Concerns about transparency and inclusiveness of Presidential search process • Concerns about politics and dominance of outside voices in search • Feeling that is BOT not in touch with faculty achievements or aspirations • A qualified candidate must understand current challenges to higher education • Should commit resources to problems before starting new directions

  5. Faculty Senate website • Faculty Executive Summary: http://facultysenate.cofc.edu/archives/2013-2014/feb-2014/Faculty%20Survey%20Executive%20Summary.pdf • Faculty Responses: http://facultysenate.cofc.edu/archives/2013-2014/feb-2014/Faculty%20Survey%20Responses.pdf

More Related