College of Science and Engineering

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.

I am going to use this white paper as the place where I post my comments about this entire transformation process. I am simply going to put voice to the comments that I hear all across campus about what’s going on. I have not heard one positive thing about transformation, which is unfortunate. Our University faces serious issues that are both external and internal. There are real areas for improvement and change that can truly be transformative. Sadly, by jamming this transformation process down our throats at the beginning of an academic year on an absolutely insane time line, the President and Provost have engendered extremely negative sentiment about what could have been a positive, inclusive process.

Look at the comments pages. Nobody is making any (except OpSci supporters). Why are there no comments? Because there is absolutely no buy-in to transformation across campus. What comments are being posted are negative comments. All of this is because the process is being pushed on us with no articulation of A) What are the problems that need to be solved? B) What is the vision for the future? Or C) What are the upper administration’s goals for transformation (beyond the trite statement that we want to be “World Class.”). The only tangible goal that anybody seems able to describe is the need to survive in a world of declining state revenue. So, rather than being a transformation process, this has predictably turned into a consolidation process. 75 white papers were turned in, and most of them are discussions of “cost savings,” even though many such savings are speculative at best.

It would be fair to say that most of these white papers are power plays – "How can I protect my turf and expand my empire by absorbing other units on campus?" Virtually none of these proposals discuss the problems that they seek to solve. Of course, I can’t really blame the proposers. The time line placed on us by the President and Provost guaranteed that collaboration would not take place (it didn't), and that instead it would devolve into a turf war (it has).

The fear that has been created across campus (even in strong units like Optics) makes positive, constructive discussion virtually impossible. Somebody should stop this process and start it over in a way that has some chance of succeeding.

I agree with the President and Provost – we are in need of bold leadership.

Now for specific comments on this proposal:

I don’t want to be overly negative about this proposal. Many of the changes suggested address specific problems within the College of Science. From my knowledge of the state of affairs in the College of Science, many of their proposed internal reorganizations are reasonable. I note that this white paper proposes a merger of Computer Science and ECE, as does the white paper submitted by the ECE department (#135 – College of Engineering and Applied Sciences). There is some disagreement between CS and ECE over who should lead such a merger (and what it should be called), but let’s focus on the positive – the idea seems to have merit.

ON the other hand, this white paper seeks to consolidate Science and Engineering in an unprecedented mega-college by absorbing two of the most successful colleges on campus – Engineering and Optical Science – into Science. However, this proposal does not even mention CALS or Medicine, two colleges that unquestionably are involved in scientific and technological innovation on campus. This white paper fails to recognize that the only easy way to save money is to reduce redundancy in teaching. However, this redundancy is created by the University’s policies that push departments to maximize student credit hours. Perversely, the departments are incentivized to teach provincial versions of courses that duplicate efforts elsewhere on campus. The current white paper does not address this issue at all, so presumably unless you change how classes are taught, the new “Schools” proposed here will suffer exactly the same fate.

On the research side, this white paper alludes to barriers to collaboration that simply do not exist. Well over half of the faculty members in the College of Optical Sciences have joint appointments in other colleges on campus. Something like a quarter of the graduate students supported by Optics faculty members are from other colleges. Likewise, we have as many faculty members with joint appointments in Optics as we have faculty with primary appointments in Optics, and most of these faculty members are active in teaching, research, and service in the College of Optical Sciences. Any barriers to collaboration in research referred to in this white paper simply are not apparent in the College of Optical Sciences.

The current white paper apparently proposes to subsume the College of Optics whole into this new superstructure. Presumably the current Dean of Optical Sciences would be demoted to a School Head in order to “save money.” A new layer of bureaucracy would be inserted where none currently exists. This is positive transformation?

I am not in a position to comment about the state of affairs in the Deans’ offices of Science or Engineering, but I would like to comment about that in the College of Optical Sciences. I would strongly suggest that anybody who thinks that consolidating Optics with Science and Engineering read the Optics white paper (#139). Our Dean’s office is a revenue GENERATOR, not a drain on resources. Our Dean’s office includes our development efforts that generate close to $1M in cash and $1M in kind annually. Our Dean’s office includes our Industrial Affiliates Program that generates over $250,000 in revenue from our industrial partners, sponsors activities that could not be supported with our state budget, and creates opportunities for our faculty and our graduates. Our Dean’s office includes our Distance Learning program that generates hundreds of thousands of dollars on distance classes delivered all over the world. Finally, our Associate Dean Gary Esham (who apparently is nothing more than “administrative overlay”) is really a chief of staff that oversees the facilities, the accounting efforts, compliance, proposals, and every other aspect of day-to-day business. I question whether there is a more value-added person on campus. Unlike other places I have been, every single aspect of the Optics Dean’s office is focused on making the faculty’s lives easier so that we can be successful and generate more revenue. The office is lean and flat, and highly responsive. Eliminating the Optics Dean would actually result in a DECREASE IN REVENUE not a cost savings.

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 Engineering Reorganization White Paper

There is a college on our University campus that consists of four virtual departments, (a) Photonics, (b) Optical Engineering, (c) Imaging and (d) Quantum Optics. Each one of these entities is composed of highly creative professors who share a strong common interest within their own virtual department yet collaborate effectively with each of the other three areas. None of these virtual departments maintains its own administration but rather share a common administrative body. This college goes by the name of The College of Optical Sciences, a name whose trademark is recognized around the world as a premier academic organization. The organizational structure of this college fits all the criteria set by President Shelton that require optimization of administrative resources among departments together with improvement in academic achievements that include teaching, research and granting support. The College continuously strives to raise its academic standards by growing its body of faculty and students, by increasing its non-state financial support, and by increasing the already large number of collaborators across our campus, across campuses at other universities, government labs and companies. I believe that any restructuring of our college by either integrating it into another college, institute or any similar entity will have a strong adverse effect on its operation and, consequently, on the academic quality of our university. Such an act will be conceived by our piers as a practical demotion of the our college, resulting in the following effects which may include, among others, • Desertion of highly effective faculty • Decrease in the effectiveness of generating outside grants • Diminishing the success of recruiting top-notch students • Encumbrance of unnecessary and expensive administrative layers I therefore urge President Shelton and Provost Hay to preserve the present structure of the College of Optical Sciences, a college which will continue to serve as one of the highlights of our University. Please note that we can survive another budget cut but we will not survive if forced to merge into another college. Signed by most faculty of the College of Optical Sciences

This white paper is actually an umbrella white paper that covers 8 other white papers on this list. The structure is massive. The author suggest barriers that really do not exist. There are many opportunities for sharing of research ideas as evidenced by many colleagues.

This proposal is lacking thought and real motivation other than cost savings.
There are a lot of hanging details as evidenced in the third page. Why would Civil Engineering remain unchanged, while many of the other depts. in the College of Engineering be merged into mega units.

It is quite vague in how this would really transform UA into world class stature.

I will comment on the School of Infomation Science and Technology on that
particular white paper's link.

It is certainly NOT in the best interests of this university for the College of Optical Sciences to lose its distinction as an independent academic unit. I believe that it is imperative for that college to remain in control of its own "destiny" in all regards.

Frankly speaking, with regards to the College of Optical Sciences, the benefits of this proposal are entirely one-sided. Integrating Optics into the the proposed "super-college" would certainly have the side-effect of improving the financial situation of units in the existing College of Science. Nonetheless, the long-term benefits and outlook for our world-class program in Optics remain dubious at best; as a consequence, I believe this component of Dean Ruiz' proposal would be detrimental to the University as a whole.

With reagrd to the School of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, the white paper states that I proposed a modification which would include Chemical and Environmental Engineering. However I proposed a merger between the faculty of Chemical and Environmental Engineering conducting (ChEE) environmental research with environmental scientists from Deaprtments like Soil, Water and Environmental Sciences (SWES) among others. (see "Unit of Environmental Engineering and Science to Function within a Broader Research School/Institute or College Merger" submitted by Jim Field). My proposal did not suggest embedding the unit in School of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, which doesn't seem like a logical placement for CHEE. That said, a unit bringing together environmental scientists, environmental chemists and environmental engineers inside a college of science and engineering is certainily worth considering.