May 5, 2001
Phone: 518-388-6518
Fax: 518-388-6417
E-mail: hollochk@union.edu
Memo to: Members of the Faculty Executive Committee
Members of the Academic Affairs Council
Subject: Termination of Civil Engineering
From: Kurt Hollocher, Geology Department Chair
I wish to express my objections to the plan to terminate the Civil Engineering Department. I think this event will further weaken the rest of Engineering, and will damage the reputation of Union College as a whole. As representatives of the faculty, you may be able to help thwart this grave mistake. Here is a summary of my observations and interpretations of the past 6 months regarding Civil Engineering.
The time scale for consideration of the issues was too short, less than 6 months from the time the Stanford consultants began their work to the beans being spilled at the March 2001 faculty meeting. Most of the discussion was held by a select few from Engineering and from the Administration. Little information was released during this time. More importantly, CE was almost fully excluded from the process, strong evidence to me that elimination of CE was the original goal. Further, non-engineering departments were not consulted (e.g., my department) regarding possible effects to their own programs. For example, Geology and Environmental Studies majors will loose an important resource with loss of CE.
I have seen little justification for the loss of CE. There have been several 'reasons' given:
CE has roughly 40% of all Engineering majors (standing population of declared majors, or graduates). Since many Engineering majors come to Union undecided as to which branch of engineering they want to major in, having a choice is a positive element of our Engineering program. Loss of CE will result in loss of students interested specifically in CE, and loss of many undecided students. I estimate that loss of CE could reduce Engineering enrollments by up to 50%. To succeed, the new Engineering curriculum must attract new students to meet or exceed this loss. If the new curriculum does not succeed, overall Engineering enrollments will not recover, further marginalizing the rest of Engineering. Though I have heard speculation that “convergent technologies” will attract many new students, at this stage I have seen nothing to give me any such confidence. The bottom line is that an undergraduate engineering education must include math and physics, design, heat and power transfer, materials properties, loads and deformation, and so on. Since undergraduates must learn the fundamentals, it seems unlikely to me that bioengineering, nanoscale engineering, or other proposed “convergent technologies” can be anything more than examples or perhaps the subject of one or two upper level courses.
The framework for “increased integration of Engineering with the Liberal Arts” has not been outlined. From what I have seen, CE is the only engineering department with substantial ties to the liberal arts, other than the sciences. Terminating CE will guarantee less integration with the non-science liberal arts. The “convergent technologies” theme calls for increased cooperation between the sciences and engineering. Has there been any consideration of how the sciences are to accommodate the new Engineering curriculum in the next few years when they can barely support their own curriculum needs and GenEd science courses?
While Engineering is denied any new resources, despite the upcoming 200 million dollar campaign, preparations are being made to put new resources into Dance and Religious Studies programs. I have heard no justification for this other than the comment that many of our peer institutions have such programs. What is planned for these programs? Will they be marginal, poorly supported programs like some others on campus? Will they be well-supported and drain resources from elsewhere? Are they supposed to be quality programs, or will they exist just so we can put them in the catalog? There has been no rationale for putting money into new programs while other liberal arts programs remain chronically understaffed (e.g., Music, Geology), or for adding new programs while stifling one of our best known divisions (Engineering) and eliminating a successful department (CE).
Civil Engineering has had some internal problems over the past decade or more. As far as I have been able to tell, the Administration did little or nothing to help resolve these problems. Interestingly, the recent crisis has brought the CE faculty together as a team. Despite their previous difficulties, the CE program, and its graduates, are well-known and well-respected beyond Union College. In the Fall of 2000, I had some e-mail discussions with members of CE regarding possible positive changes to the CE curriculum. Some of these changes would directly benefit non-engineering students, would permit more interaction between CE and the Geology Department in particular, and would potentially enhance the CE program. My point here is that, although CE has had its share of problems, they are willing and interested in keeping up with new technology, willing to change and innovate, and willing to work with non-engineering departments. Though granted the other parts of Engineering have not recently been under the same pressure, I have not seen in them, now or in the past, the same interest in the rest of the college as I have seen in CE.
Quite frankly, the rapid pace of events in the past 6 months, the exclusion of CE from the process, the artificial and to my mind unjustified constraints put on Engineering, the succession of new reasons to get rid of CE, and the poorly defined proposals for a new direction for Engineering, strongly suggest to me that CE was set up for elimination from the start. I further see these events as being the next steps toward the elimination of Engineering at Union College, probably excepting Computer Science. My observations and conclusions may be wrong, but if so it is because I, and most Union faculty, have been kept in the dark about these vitally important issues.
I came to Union College during the great GenEd curriculum debates of the 1980's. There were three years of college-wide discussion; strong opinions and heated tempers were expressed throughout the college. We have recently finished a 6-year discussion of the great calendar issue, with even more strong opinions and heated tempers. What college-wide discussion has there been regarding Engineering in general or CE in particular? 20 minutes at one faculty meeting is about it. Along with the lack of discussion, I am distressed at the willingness of the Administration to bypass normal procedures for consideration and approval of program changes and faculty line allocation. Does not termination of a sizable and respected department, and probable weakening of an entire academic division, deserve more discussion?
Granted, the President is the boss and has the authority, I suppose, to do what he wants regardless of what the faculty thinks (Trustees willing, of course). However, we should not, as a faculty, just sit back and let this happen. We should insist on open discussion. Our reputation as a college deserves no less. I urge the FEC and the AAC to oppose the planned termination of CE until a college-wide discussion of Union's overall academic resources and academic future can be made.
Sincerely,
Geology Department Chair