Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Faculty of Architecture
Faculty Retreat
The Imperative For Change
Jonathan Beddoes
Interim Dean
11 December 2015
The Question: Do We Renew Structure ?
AcademicCurriculum
ProgramStructure
Sustainable withResources expected
Accreditation &Program Review
proof
PromotesCollegiality
Improves studentexperience
Creates opportunityfor PhD enrolment
Governance Structure
Resources:• The number of regular faculty … is not sufficient to mount the professional program• Financial resources … adequate … provided that baseline funding is available to bring the academic
component up to an acceptable level• Deep concern about the apparent erosion of the human resource base in the Faculty Governance & Program Structure:• Governance had been a central concern … things seem to have deteriorated• Poorly defined governance structure fosters confusion and ill will • curricular and governance models must be reformed• lack of clarity in … governance model has been a major source of stress and conflict• Lack of clarity in the relationship between the professional programs and the interdisciplinary
program, between the graduate and undergraduate levels in the Faculty of ArchitectureStudents:• student intake has declined … trends must be reversed• Concern … that undergraduate and graduate students can be taking the exact same courses for
differing granting degree• students … are experiencing damaging and debilitating levels of stress • Time to completion is an issue …• Expectations regarding the duration of the program are a surprise to students …Faculty:• Clearly been a breakdown in morale, sense of trust, respect and collegiality• Many professors feel that there is very little time left for research and that research and publishing is
not particularly fostered
Review/Accreditation Reports
Some External Comments – Sept to Nov 2015
“A place where administrators and professors connive and
squabble over funding, over students and over power made for
an environment where students learned to be equally
unprofessional …” … Recent Graduate
“Resistance of Department to external involvement is such that
I have given up, being tired of beating my head against a
wall.” … Practitioner & Professional Association Executive
“They have been doing a disservice to the profession and more
importantly to the students” … Principal of Winnipeg firm
“I hold my nose when I write cheques to donate money to the
University” … (Different) Principal of Winnipeg firm
Longstanding Issues 1983 Committee of Three Report
“Increasing departmental compartmentalization and decentralization …
divisiveness, lack of interaction among the departments and the general
lack of commitment to the Faculty as a whole.”
“… many complaints of inequities … ranging from those arising from
distribution of teaching involvement to the distribution of resources,
whether perceived or real, this inevitably leads to poor morale.”
“… morale has reached a very low point indeed when this attitude
exists …”
“… faculty itself tended to get more and more isolated to the extent of not
even knowing what the sister departments were doing, or what a colleague
in another department was working on, resulting in great degree of
disinterest, lack of commitment and lack of cohesion”
“ …one is suspicious even of the loyalty of one’s immediate leaders and by
no means sure of their support.”
“… a number of courses essentially duplicating course description and
content.”
“… entrench departmental separations creating duplication in course
offerings, redundancies and at times even tending to work inadvertently at
cross purposes. The overall goals of the Faculty in the process, have been
lost.”
“… elimination of the departmental structure which is characteristic of
Faculties at the University of Manitoba.”
Longstanding Issues1983 Committee of Three Report
Operating Budget Changes: Recent & Anticipated
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4
2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 2015/16 2016/17 2017/18
% B
ud
get
Red
ucti
on
-R
eall
ocati
on
expected
Staff Complement History
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
42
44
46
48
50
52
54
56
58
60
62
2008/09 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15 Fu
ll +
Part
Tim
e S
up
po
rt S
taff
To
tal F
TE
Sta
ff
Operating Budget – Current
Academic + support staff salaries + benefits = 90% of budget
Non-salary budget ≈$688k
4% budget ≈$270k or 40% of non-salary budget
$4,365,532$843,759
$1,013,613
$59,050
$115,000
$112,000$367,784
$34,500
academic salaries total
admin/support staff salaries
benefits (acad + support staff)
student salary + benefits
Lab Expenditures
Dept Discretionary
Dean's Office
Other
$109,784
$50,000
$35,000
$30,000
$20,000
$20,000
$20,000
$12,000
$71,000Contingency
Bldg. Renovations
Dues/Memberships
Telecommunications
Recruiting
Indigenous Initiatives
Dean's Lecture Series
Supplies
Other
$367,784 – Dean’s Office
Operating Budget – Current
HostingStudent/Faculty TravelResearch Support/Start-upsWarming HutsYear End Exhibitionetc.
Enrolment History
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
550
600
0
50
100
150
200
250
300fa
ll 2
005
fall 2
006
fall 2
007
fall 2
008
fall 2
009
fall 2
010
fall 2
011
fall 2
012
fall 2
013
fall 2
014
fall 2
015
To
tal F
t+P
TE
nro
lmen
t
Maste
rs F
ull
Tim
e +
Part
Tim
e E
nro
men
t
Landscape Arch
Interior Design
City Planning
Architecture
Faculty of Architecture
Summarize the Current State
Sustainability
Accreditation &Program Review
Collegiality
Student experience
PhD program
Table 5
Tables 2, 8
Table 6
Tables 1, 4
Tables 3, 7
in the next 20 minutesat your table
choose one word or
draw one picture/diagram
to describe current stateof assigned attribute
3 minutes to presentto everyone
Faculty of Architecture
Input Received
���� Potential Changes ?
Faculty Retreat
Jonathan Beddoes
Interim Dean
11 December 2015
Faculty Name: Many commented that Faculty of Architecture is the appropriate name, and likewise many commented that this name is not appropriate or causes confusion since a Department has the same name.
Faculty Scope: Combination of all disciplines in one Faculty that is distinct in University is a strength and should be further developed.
Student Admission: Admission to the undergraduate program should be by Direct Entry with elimination of U1.
Major/Minor Designation: Undergraduate degree should at least have a ‘major’ indicated, as well as the possibility of an identified ‘minor’.
Common Courses: Greater joint presentation of courses between disciplines in both the undergraduate and Master’s programs. Utilize courses from other Faculties for some topics.
Input – October:
Interior Design: Support for continuing the Interior Design program at the Master’s level.
Interdisciplinary: Consensus that interdisciplinary potential not being realized, suggestions that this is related to governance structure.
PhD Program: There is wide interest in re-activating the PhD program.
Governance: Many comments focussed on governance structure, often associated with the placement of the ED program in the Faculty.
Leave As Is: Too many changes, leave as is and refine where necessary.
Input – October:
October Input ���� Potential Changes ? - 1
1. Leave As Is
No Major Changes to Program Structure• Curriculum improvements to address external/accreditation reviews
No Major Changes to Academic Structure• Maintain 4 Departments, ED Program, & re-activate PhD program as best
possible within budget constraints
No Major Change to Governance Structure• Build improved collegiality and student experience through improved
communication between Faculty/University leadership & all Faculty stakeholders (students, staff, faculty, alumni, Partners Program, Professions)
• Introduce rigorous Continuous Improvement Process to translate feedback from stakeholders into curriculum improvements
October Input ���� Potential Changes ? - 2
2. Governance
No faculty members uniquely assigned to Environmental Design program
• Contributes to simplified Governance structure
• Current ED faculty join Departments• Improved career pathways for current ED program faculty
• Better utilization of faculty human resources• All faculty potentially involved in all levels of programs from ED1/U1
• ED1/U1 & ED2 students benefit from interaction with broader range of faculty
October Input ���� Potential Changes ? - 3
3. Governance
Environmental Design Program Advisory Committee membership
Committee Membership:• Program Chair• Department Heads• Chaired by Dean
• Improved & Expedited:� curriculum evolution � resource management
Direct Entry Admission (= mixed entry = Direct Entry + U1)
• Better identification of student cohort
• Opportunity to fully utilize ED1 year to achieve academic program objectives
• Target ED1 at well defined student cohort � resource implications� reduced U1 enrolment ?
October Input ���� Potential Changes ? - 4
4. Student Admission
ED Options ���� Program Majors/Minors
• Majors – disciplines within Faculty – link to Master’s programs• Minors – disciplines outside Faculty• Double Minor ?• No Major/Minor ?
• No declaration by students� no enrolment limit in major/minors, except course enrolment limits
• Eliminate all ED program ‘gateways’
• Greater academic freedom for students� more opportunity for cross-disciplinary studies, within & outside Faculty
• Introduce more common courses within ED program � resource implications
• More credit hours from outside Faculty � resource implications
October Input ���� Potential Changes ? - 5
5. Academic Structure
October Input ���� Potential Changes ? - 6
6. Academic Structure
Interdisciplinary & Common Courses
• Interdisciplinary common courses within Faculty• upper year ED program majors• In Master’s professional programs
• Elective courses from outside Faculty• Define minors from other Faculties ?
• Broader based ED program• Greater ability for students to build unique program• More credit hours from outside Faculty � resource implications
October Input ���� Potential Changes ? - 7
7. Re-activate Ph.D. Program
• Recruitment & Admission of Students ?
• Support of Students ?• Infrastructure & office space• Funding support
• Course Offerings ?
• Potential to build research enterprise
• Better environment to build successful academic careers
• Potential for PhD students to contribute to ED & Master’s programs• Sessional appointment• Studio Critiques
3 Year Master’s Professional Programs (Tuition fee structure?)
• No declaration by students in ED Program� no enrolment limit in major/minors, except course enrolment limit
• Eliminate all ED program ‘gateways’, except:• acceptance into ED program • acceptance into Masters programs
• Greater academic freedom for students� more opportunity for cross-disciplinary studies, within & outside Faculty
• Introduce more common courses within ED program � resource implications
• More credit hours from outside Faculty � resource implications
• ED Major � links curriculum to Master’s program
• Acceptance of 3 yr ED graduates to Masters programs elsewhere
October Input ���� Potential Changes ? - 8
8. 3 Year ED Program with Direct Entry
• As part of ED program or Master’s program or both ?
• Enhanced experiential education for students
• Improved connectivity with Professional Community
October Input ���� Potential Changes ? - 9
9. Establish Cooperative Education Option
Lunch ! – courtesy of Faculty Development Initiative
Discussion – Potential Changes ?
At each table:
discuss which potential changes could have greatest impactin helping move to the Common Principles
After Lunch:
Discussion and 5 minute presentation by each table
Faculty of Architecture
Faculty of Architecture
Looking Forward
Faculty Retreat
Jonathan Beddoes
Interim Dean
11 December 2015
The Timeline Going Forward
Create conditions to attractdiscipline specific leadership
My Objective as Interim Dean:
• Term Ends June 30 2017
AND
• Next accreditation visit: spring 2018 (M.Arch.)1. Governance was the issue most consistently raised2. deep concern about the apparent erosion of the human resource3. student intake at the graduate level has declined4. a breakdown in the morale, sense of trust, respect and collegiality within the fabric
of the Faculty of Architecture5. lack of clarity in the relationship between the professional programs and the
interdisciplinary program6. express alarm at the fact that many of the issues raised here have been noted by
previous CACB teams
Is this still the right Objective?
The Timeline Going Forward – Intermediate Term
Spring 2018 - Architecture accreditation
July 2017 - start date: new discipline specific leader
June/July 2016 - start search for new discipline specific leadership- “Position Profile”
� highlight Faculty forward direction� based on decisions of review and renewal process
Lots of work to do in a short time.
Is stated Objective still the right one?
The Timeline Going Forward – Short Term
Dec./Jan. - Re-structuring Advisory Groupconsider input/discussion of today
January - request for 2nd round of input based on discussion of today
February - 2nd Faculty RetreatStudy Week collective decisions on changes
March to Sept. - preparation of documentation for changesFaculty Council approval, fall 2016 � Senate
2016/17 Academic Year- curriculum review/redesign to align with changes
Faculty of Architecture
