College of Optical Sciences
Tue, 10/14/2008 - 2:08pm — memcinto
Name of proposed new unit, OR Title of submission:
College of Optical Sciences
139 College of Optical Sciences.pdf
Name of contact person for this proposal: James C. Wyant
Contact person title: Dean, College of Optical Sciences
Contact Address:
1630 E. University Blvd.
Tucson, AZ 85721-0094
Contact Phone: 520-621-2448
Responses from President and Provost
Response #1> Back to List of White Papers
If you do not wish to comment publicly on this site, you may post your comments at uatransf@email.arizona.edu
Comments
The African American
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.
It has recently come to our
It has recently come to our attention that the University of Arizona is considering a merger of the College of Optical Sciences (OSC) with the College of Science and/or College of Engineering, in an effort to cut cost in difficult financial times. We have reviewed the recommendations and guidelines of the University's Strategic Planning and Budget Committee (SPABC), as well as Dean Wyant's response pertaining to the proposed changes. As alumni of the University, and current/former employees of Sandia National Laboratories (the second largest employer of Optical Sciences graduates), we are deeply concerned that a merger of OSC with any other college would have a negative effect on the singular focus that an Optical Sciences degree imparts, and from which we have all benefited. There are many optics/photonics curriculum throughout this country and the world, but very few autonomous Optics Departments and even fewer Colleges. The success of the University of Arizona's College of Optical Sciences is due in no small part to its autonomy. We urge you to concur with the recommendations of both Dean Wyant and the SPABC, and maintain the College of Optical Sciences' status as separate academic entity.
Note: the content herein is strictly the opinion of the individuals above and in no way represents the opinion of Sandia Corporation, which operates Sandia National Laboratories for the US Department of Energy.
The UA President’s Hispanic
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 – while we commend the entrepreneurial spirit, the use of funds raised to support student scholarships, travel etc. and the alternative instructional methodologies mentioned (e.g. distance learning) this proposal does not yet sufficiently address the Hispanic Advisory Council criteria
I am writing as an outsider,
I am writing as an outsider, someone with no personal ax to grind in any internal restructuring at the University of Arizona. I am also writing as a representative of SPIE the largest professional organization serving the broad optics and photonics community. In have been working in this role for almost a decade and have regular contact with universities throughout the world and with funding bodies. I serve as advisor to a number of university entities and to those responsible for creation of national science and technology strategies.
I am horrified by the possibility that the university’s Center for Optical Sciences might be merged or absorbed. Throughout the world I meet with people at the highest levels of science and engineering who admire and envy the University of Arizona for the quality of research at the College of Optical Sciences; many of these people have no idea where Arizona is, and know only of the University of Arizona through the reputation of the College of Optical Sciences.
It seems to me that the University of Arizona has a carefully developed center of excellence, and it puzzles me that it would consider risking this crown jewel. From my own experience I expect that the outcome of the proposed mergers will be detrimental to the Center, despite intentions and assurances otherwise.
I spent a good part of my career as a senior executive in industry. Hiring may be the greatest opportunity and responsibility. I would guess that that I mingle with 800 or so students each year across the world, and hear at least 300 student presentations. When asked about the best potential employees I unhesitatingly recommend the students from the College of Optical Science. I believe that beyond the excellence in research, the whole ethos of the College and its connection to the national innovation infrastructure, prepares and inspires young people in a special way. I believe that is too rare. Please don’t risk it.
I support Jim Wyant’s white
I support Jim Wyant’s white paper proposal. I feel that the college of optical science should be kept a separate entity. I believe what Jim says in that the OSC should be thought of as a model for other colleges to follow. According to Jim’s claim, OSC has clearly proven that it is both highly efficient and self sufficient. A major contributing factor to the OSC’s excellent performance must be attributed to the family like atmosphere. At the OSC bureaucracy is kept to a minimum thereby increasing the speed at which issues are dealt with.
I can easily walk into Joe McCollough’s (OSC’s undergraduate advisor) office and talk about adding/dropping courses, information on transfer courses from pima, courses that will be available in the coming semesters, etc. The speed at which students can resolve problems in this college is amazing. It comforts me greatly knowing that I am well taken care of in this college. This is not the same for other students in other majors though. I once tried to schedule a meeting with a college of engineering advisor and it took three days to get in. Once I was finally given a meeting time the advisor was very short and not welcoming. This is completely understandable considering the advisor has to deal with hundreds of other students. However, this is not acceptable for a top tier school like the college of optical sciences. I fear that if the OSC is absorbed by the college of engineering or any other college, then the personal attention factor will be lost and the school will begin to lose face. The solid reputation of the OSC is very important to the university and to the OSC’s students.
When I graduate, I will be truly proud to say that I graduated from the best college for optics in the world. If the OSC is forced to assimilate with other engineering colleges, I predict that the degree I receive in May will be degraded by the affiliation with the college of engineering. I am not saying that the college of engineering is at lower level than the college of optical sciences, I am trying to say that the OSC BS degree will less unique as a part of another college than it is now as a separate college. An OSC degree could be thought of as just another engineering degree when attained under the rule of the entire college of engineering, and I think that this would make it less valuable to employers. By this I mean that standards for students’ education might be lowered as a result of the inevitable watering down of the amazing wealth of knowledge provided by optical sciences professors because of other engineering colleges’ interests.
As a senior undergraduate student in the college of optical science I am considering to continue my education in optical sciences. I fear that if the college of optical sciences is absorbed by another college then the following factors will be significantly reduced: resources available to all graduate students, the value of a degree, the attractiveness of attending OSC as a graduate student, the effectiveness of OSC professors to teach, and the return margin of the OSC. I like the way things are now at the OSC and I would be greatly saddened if things changed. Please do not think of the OSC as a cash cow to be evenly distributed amongst other colleges, but instead think of the OSC as a model for other colleges to follow. This is the only way the University of Arizona can overcome the dramatic budget cuts it faces.
Again I support Jim Wyant’s proposal and I hope that the OSC is not adversely affected by any of the restructuring of the university.
I realize that the University
I realize that the University of Arizona restructuring effort is responding to the current tough financial realities. The efforts by the President Shelton and his cabinet to solve the University problems are very welcome.
It is appropriate to suggest that although restructuring may be the solution for some university units, it certainly is not a solution for the College of Optical Sciences (OSC). The university constantly focuses in excellence and a good example of such is the OSC.
By attempting to dilute the OSC in a restructuring effort, significant damage can be done to the prestige of OSC. It has taken some 40 plus years to built the name of College of Optical Sciences and having it recognized internationally as one of the best, or the best place, in the world to study optics.
We have here an excellent example of what branding means. We do business because our name is clearly known around the world. Our unique and crafted identity clearly attracts students, industry and government agencies to the University of Arizona.
For me the unique identity of the College of Optical Sciences is a business priority.
Please, please, please: Do not change the College of Optical Sciences!!!!!
The College of Optical
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
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, and the College of Engineering Reorganization White Papers
The College of Optical
The College of Optical Sciences is a unique and prestigious component of the University of Arizona. There is only one other similar college in the country. One recent colloquium speaker described the College of Optical Sciences as "the best place in the world to study optics." It is a distinguished, independent academic unit. Many faculty members have joint appointments with other departments. This enhances the interdisciplinary nature of the college.
Merging the College of Optical Sciences into another college will diminish its reputation as an independent academic unit. This move will not improve the interdisciplinary research performed in the college. The financial benefits will be negligible.
The fact that there is an entire college devoted to optics is what convinced me to pursue a PhD at the University of Arizona. Please do not weaken the College of Optical Science's reputation by combining it with another unit.
Dean Wyant's proposal is a
Dean Wyant's proposal is a clear step forward in these times of change. In my view, the College of Optical Sciences thrives because of its partnerships, especially with industry. As a graduate student, this not only equates to appropriate funding for the research I do, but it also puts me into real-job situations that help to make my research meaningful and poises me well for the time when I will graduate. The value of this partnership with industry, as modeled by the College of Optical Sciences, should not be overlooked.
The College of Optics (OSC)
The College of Optics (OSC) is a rather unique Institution. It has a multi-faceted faculty ranging from people involved in forefront optical engineering to people involved in forefront optical physics. This eclectic collection of faculty, united by the common optics curriculum that binds us as a faculty, is what makes the OSC unique and revered. We offer a breadth of optics education not available elsewhere, and it is why we are the brand name in optics, and a credit to the UA, Tucson, and Arizona. Furthermore, our high national and international standings along with the multi-disciplinary enviroment that exists at OSC are what allow us to generate revenue for the UA in the form of grants, both Federal and industrial, and for our academic program via the industrial affiliates who place very high value on our graduates.
It is my opinion that absorbing OSC into either the Science of Engineering College will undermine the unique nature of the academic program and multi-discilinary environment at OSC leading to loss of faculty, reputation, and ultimately revenue. In particular, if OSC were absorbed by the College of Engineering this would severely hamper the ability of the optical physics component of the OSC faculty to recruit suitable students from the pool of engineering students, and vice versa if we were absorbed into the College of Science. Without suitable students the respective component of the OSC faculty would wither with time, and the educational breadth that makes us special would be eroded, not to mention our reputation, and revenue.
Part of the justification of the proposed College of Science and Engineering is that “critical issues facing society today require a closer working relationship between emgineers and scientists.” But this is what the College of Optics has been very doing very successfully since it’s inception 40 years ago. Why not use OSC as the incubator for this rather style of multi-disciplinary research for interested faculty campus wide, as suggested in the College of Optics proposal, rather than trying a grand experiment that is not assured of success and could undermine OSC in the process?
In summary, the proposed mergers of the College of Optics into a larger College each pose considerable threats to the academic program at OSC, our reputation, and revenue generation. Percieved short term savings could easily turn inot very large long term losses if OSC is undermined. I hope President Shelton and Provost Hays see this to be true and leave OSC as an autonomous College.
Post new comment