College of Engineering Reorganization

The African American Advisory Council would want to insure that Transformations processes including consolidations and workforce reductions would not erode The University of Arizona's efforts to recruit and retain diverse faculty, students, and staff.

The College of Optical Sciences has always been an independent entity since its founding in 1964 as the Optical Sciences Center. The merger of the College of Optical Sciences with any other unit on campus whether it be the College of Science or the College of Engineering would adversely affect the College of Optical Sciences. There are no advantages to any merger that I or others can see.

The College of Optical Sciences is a prestigious and world renowned and diminishing its status will impact its national and international reputation as well as the reputation of the University of Arizona, Tucson and the State of Arizona. Does anybody really think Tucson would be “Optics Valley” if the college was not an independent entity?

The College of Optical Sciences receives very little in state funds and brings in substantial research dollars, patents and recognition. The faculty have to work to bring in research dollars to cover pay raises they wish to receive they don’t get handouts from the state. Perhaps the rest of the University should learn by example from the College of Optical Sciences. Ironically two other white paper proposals suggest becoming more like the College of Optical Sciences. The college has a very active Industrial Affiliates (IA) program which would certainly be undermined if the college is merged. These industrial affiliates donate substantially to the college and a large portion of the college’s operating expenses. Teaching assistantships, laboratories, scholarships, student travel, student social activities, etc. are paid not by the state but by the Industrial Affiliates. I can’t imagine the current levels of IA support would be maintained if the College of Optical Sciences is merged and in effect demoted.

The College of Optical Sciences is composed of a variety of disciplines related to optical sciences. The College is already involved in interdisciplinary activities with the Medical College, the College of Engineering and the College of Science. In fact today was the kick off for the Engineering Research Center (ERC). This is collaboration initiated by Optical Sciences faculty, between the College of Optical Sciences, the College of Engineering, the College of Science and several other renowned universities (MIT, Stanford, U. Wash, Cornell, Tufts, Columbia, UC Berkley and ASU) and the National Science Foundation (NSF). If this is not interdisciplinary what is? Barriers to collaboration do not exist in the College of Optical Sciences. The undergraduate BS in Optical Engineering offers several cross discipline tracks to serve the needs of future employers. The College of Optical Sciences probably has more joint faculty than any other college.

The suggestion of merging the College of Optics with another College is demoralizing to faculty, students, alumni and Industrial Affiliates. The whole idea of a merger is contrary to the ideals of President Robert Shelton’s and the Provost Merideth Hay’s Transformation Plan for “quality of research, teaching and outreach; productivity in educational offerings and research, scholarship, and creative activities; Efficiency of unit’s operations; and demand for the graduates, knowledge, and programs of the unit.” The College of Optical Sciences is highly successful in all aspects mentioned above so if these are the goals why is a merger even being considered?

I am twice a graduate of Optical Sciences. The first was a BS in Optical Engineering and the second a MS in Optical Sciences. I can say the undergraduate program has improved significantly since it has been under the control Optical Sciences. When I received my BS the program was controlled by the ECE department in the College of Engineering and I have to say the ECE and College of Engineering experience leaves a lot to be desired. Since being under Optical Sciences the curricula has been tailored to meet the needs of true optical engineers rather than the previous watered down approach that required the optical engineering students to take courses that were not that relevant to their interests. Even the thought of combining courses perceived to be common would have a negative effect. One example would be the electricity and magnetism courses. Electrical engineers and optical engineers are interested in different aspects of E&M and as an optical engineer I couldn’t stand the thought of another EM course filled with electrical circuits and antennas. I have nothing but praise for the College of Optical Sciences regarding the courses, faculty, students, alumni and the camaraderie between them all.

The University of Rochester’s Institute of Optics and The University of Central Florida’s College of Optics and Photonics (CREOL) must be giddy at the thought that administration of the University of Arizona is considering doing away with their primary competition. Hey folks come on over to us because that UofA school has been demoted! This will only lead to a “brain drain” as faculty move on to other institutions.

As far as a merger between the College of Science and Engineering (Optical Sciences staying independent of course) is also a terrible idea. Perhaps the SPBAC committee and the Provost’s office should do a little research. Of the 62 universities in the Association of American Universities (AAU) how many do you think have a combined College of Science and Engineering? The answer is one, Tulane University but they did away with their traditional engineering courses and now only offer biomedical and chemical engineering. So if you look at true traditional engineering curricula there are no universities in which Science and Engineering are under the same unit. Maybe the Provost and President should look at their peer institutions.

This comment has been posted under the following whitepapers: College of Optical Sciences, College of Science & Engineering, and College of Engineering Reorganization.

Template – anything that determines or serves as a pattern; a model
Model – a standard or example for imitation or comparison
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This comment, while in favour of retaining the status of the College of Optical Sciences as an individual academic unit, is meant to illuminate the underlying problem as I see it and reference a viable solution by using the appropriate tools at hand.

• The problem: Not enough current funding in conjunction with the rising cost of operations (all-inclusive)

• The solution: Find alternative funding sources and eliminate duplication of effort and unproductive programs/entities, unless a feasible plan can be provided to maintain their existence through self-sustaining financial support.

It would seem to me that based on all the information I have been privy to at this point, from a financial standpoint, the College of Optical Sciences already has this plan in place and in addition is currently being considered as a template for other departments to model themselves after.

If, as defined above, a model is considered the standard or example for imitation or comparison, then the first perplexing thing about the proposals which address a merger with the College of Optical Sciences is the implication that altering this model in any way would be conducive to a successful venture. I am of the understanding that – after years of experience (and education) in scientific, business and other industries – you don’t mess with the model! Instead, you use it to a) fix a dysfunctional system and/or b) build upon a functioning entity. It is only when the model or template no longer serves its purpose that it is either modified to encompass changing systems or discarded because it is obsolete. This is the successful application of any transformation process.

The University of Arizona is viewed as an educational institution but in actuality it is a company dealing in the business of education. To this end, the second perplexing thing about the proposals is that despite the looming prospect of dwindling or non-existent state funds (to maintain the status quo for programs and facilities), many of them appear to address the educational benefits and cost savings by college mergers and downsizing of personnel, but few discuss practical channels for obtaining external funding.

Collaborative efforts among the colleges may be beneficial from an internal point of view, but from a business angle, it is the ‘mergers’ with industry and financial sponsors which are viewed most favourably as viable mechanisms for success: They promote working relationships between the educational facility and industry as well as the employers of the future graduates of this university.

This in essence is what the team at the College of Optical Sciences has done with the leadership of Dean Wyant at the helm. His proven administrative track record in conjunction with his innate entrepreneurial skills, have resulted in the college capturing an increasing market share of external funding sources. But he would probably be the first to say that this success is the cumulative result of a long-term group effort involving proactive planning and business acumen as well as the communication and cooperation of all involved.

Without this cohesive effort by the faculty and current administration at the College of Optical Sciences, the model may very well disintegrate or become a dysfunctional system itself and that would be a great disservice to the university at large. Each person employed by this college is a vital part of this department of the University of Arizona and while it is true that nothing is perfect or lasts forever (as people come and go with time and life circumstances), the fact is, a productive and financially sound mechanism is currently in place.

I would encourage the members of the SPBAC Transformation Plan Advisory Subcommittee, and all other individuals involved in the decision-making processes of this endeavour, to take into serious consideration, not only the difficult lessons and sacrifices endured by the college and all of its employees over the years, but also its processes and procedures that make it a shining example of a fiscally sound entity today.

These could be used as training material for those who wish to emulate its hard-won success as a world renowned school of learning and professionalism. Not only securing, the College of Optical Sciences’ rightful, individual standing at the university, but also with time, the elevation of other departments to similar status from an educational and financial viewpoint and ultimately, the future success of a self-sustaining corporation in the business of education…the University of Arizona.

Note: Also posted under the College of Science and Engineering White Paper

The UA President’s Hispanic Advisory Council (HAC) is pleased to provide its evaluation of this White Paper/Proposal, with the specific goal of relating it to the joint UA/HAC goals concerning diversity and inclusion, recruitment, retention and graduation of Hispanic students and faculty, and on meeting the UA goal of becoming a Hispanic Serving Institution by 2012. Additional criteria used when reviewing this proposal include the following: UA’s land grant institution status and thus its location in the southwest and the changing demographics of this area; innovative program design, including instruction methodologies; and whether the proposal realistically addresses the UA’s business needs. HAC’s mission it to strengthen relationships between the UA and the diverse communities within the State of Arizona by serving as a communications conduit and developing mutually beneficial partnerships.

HAC has reviewed this proposal and rates this as:

Revamp – this proposal does not sufficiently address the Hispanic Advisory Council criteria and should be revamped.