Sector Reports
|
April 8, 2005 Technical Colleges Sector Report |
January 28, 2005 Specialized Colleges Sector Report |
| Health Science Sector Report - April 8, 2005 | |
The Health Science Sector would like to thank Chancellor King for his intervention and facilitating the obtaining of funds to save the SUNY Hospitals in a time of financial crisis. We also want to indicate that the health sciences with its wide range of educational and research programs is a resource to promote health and wellness activities for the State of New York. written by Peter Nickerson, 4/8/05 |
|
| Technical Colleges Sector Report - April 8, 2005 | |
We believe we have cause for new optimism! As the Colleges of Technology transition to a baccalaureate culture we are creating exciting new programs. Recently, we have some assurance from UUP, SUNY and legislators that support will be forthcoming and acknowledgment that the previous BAP formula has done us a selective disservice. We are preparing a realistic 5-year plan to address issues like:
We are grateful for a reason to be hopeful. |
|
| Special and Statutory Colleges Sector Report - April 8, 2005 | |
Much of our discussion focused on the ongoing struggle between SUNY system and Alfred University. Peer Bode informed us of the history and current dynamics of the conflict (We were extremely gratified to hear that the Chancellor was to appoint a "unit head"). Senators shared details of the Mission Review II process on their respective campuses; Ron and myself had a lot to contribute, since our campus was one of the first to have a site visit. All agreed that the process was moving forward smoothly; our campuses had not experienced any issues with proper inclusion of faculty governance Our colleagues from the statutories pointed out that diminished state support has a unique impact on their campuses: the costly "outreach" programs are now left without secure sources of funding. We also discussed our concern over the lack of faculty representation on the BOT. Finally, we realized that Cornell's Vet school was unrepresented in the UFS, despite being eligible. Submitted by SUNYIT Faculty Senator Douglas Eich. |
|
| University Faculty Senate The State University of New York University Centers Sector Report 8 April 2005 | |
The primary concern of the University Centers Senators: budget. Several aspects of this were discussed. First and affecting all other budget concerns: while the proposed SUNY guaranteed tuition rates plan is attractive, its implementation will all too probably be undercut by failure of the Legislature and Governor to provide the general state revenues support of SUNY the plan requires. This is especially significant for the University Centers given the impossibility of offsetting declines in general state revenue support with tuition increases in many graduate and some professional programs. Second, the University Centers continue concerned about library acquisitions funding. While the recently implemented journals contract addresses this to an extent, major challenges remain. Sciences journals acquisition costs are crowding out all other acquisitions, reducing or eliminating monograph acquisitions in the humanities as well as the sciences, and thereby diminishing the abilities of the libraries to provide resources for future research and instruction. While there may be some amelioration of the sciences journals costs if the scientific professional societies establish electronically published journals, that will succeed only if these are recognized as legitimate publication routes for purposes of assessing quality and impact of research. Further, electronic publication has not yet successfully addressed the questions of the technologies and procedures to be used for archiving materials. That is a concern for both the currently available electronic publications and any and all extensions. A third budget concern identified is that limited graduate program funding handicaps recruiting U.S. graduate students, and this does not appear to be recognized by SUNY or the Legislature. The stipends University Center graduate programs can offer are notably lower than those offered by other top rank programs. This is a problem across all disciplines, although most obvious in the sciences. Various other issues were introduced but not discussed at length. Students are often called consumers; however attractive this may be, it overlooks if not negates the requirement that educational programs evaluate their participants. Related is the issue of alleged grade inflation: if this is to be supported by data, those should include any improvement in the quality or abilities of the students in the programs in question. As for recruitment of highly qualified undergraduates: some of the Centers are initiating solicitation of gifts supporting honors scholarships; others offer such scholarships, will continue these and the solicitation of gifts supporting them. William H. Baumer |
|
| Health Science Sector Report Given by Peter Nickerson, University at Buffalo January 28, 2005 | |
The Health Science sector passed the following resolution: Be it resolved that the Health Science Sector commends the Chancellor for articulating the aspirations of our faculty, and for rapport that he has established with the faculty and for the initiatives that have strengthened our academic programs. Graduation Rates:The professional and graduate programs in the health sciences have a high graduation rate. This high rate is in part due to active and selective interviews, full time faculty advisors and active cultivation of our students. For the undergraduates in the health sciences, the graduation rate is high. In the upper division, it may be in the area of 90%, due to selectivity, advisement, help and guidance of students and commitment of the students to the program that they have chosen. Medical School Tuition and Community Service:We understand that a proposal to encourage community service upon graduation is included in the executive budget. Those in state students agreeing to the community service would pay in state tuition. Without this agreement, in state students would pay out of state tuition. The Health Science Sector has always encouraged and has participated actively in the culture of community service. We have a number of strong concerns about the proposal:
Privatization of the SUNY Hospitals:The proposal in the executive budget to privatize SUNY Hospitals is of concern to the Health Sciences Sector:
|
|
| Specialized Colleges Sector Report - Winter Plenary - Jan. 28, 2005 | |
PRESENT: Dr. Kathleen Jacquette - Farmingdale - chair; Dr. Barbara Warkentine - Maritime; Prof. Peer Bode - Alfred Ceramic; one representative from ILR - Cornell and one from Agricultural - Cornell (I did not take attendance and do not recall their names.) The following items were discussed:
The meeting adjourned at 12pm. |
|
| Technical Colleges Sector Report Report submitted by Anne Donnelly, Cobleskill January 28, 2005 | |
Chancellor King: To Carol and Joe: the Senators in our sector would like to be included in the "daily news clips" distribution list. Regarding upcoming election for President of the Senate: In view of the rapidity of breaking news and the very fluid politics in Albany in the upcoming year we request that candidate address the issue of logistics in their statements. Our sector chose not to address the Academic Bill of Rights hoping that ignoring it would make it a non-issue that would stop at the BOT level. We also discussed factors affecting advisement and the complexities of graduation rates. We were delighted to include Trustee Stephanie Gross in our group. |
|
| The University Faculty Senate The State University of New York University Centers Sector Concerns 28 January 2005 | |
The consideration of issues of concern by the Senators representing State University's University Centers included two areas: 1. student recruitment and fees; 2. the "Academic Bill of Rights". 1. Student Recruitment and Fees The concerns regarding student recruitment and fees included both undergraduate and graduate programs. There are several problems in this area. First is funding of graduate tuition waivers. While graduate tuition rates for students from New York State are not a significant problem, the funding of tuition waivers for graduate students holding teaching or research assistantships is. The Centers have to fund these waivers from their operating budgets, but the additional cost resulting from graduate tuition increases has not been addressed in the operating budget allocations for the Centers. This problem is notably aggravated by the increases in tuition rates for graduate students who are not New York State residents, requiring matching major increases in tuition waivers for "out-of-state" students. Yet to recruit excellent graduate students from across the U.S. and internationally, the Centers have to fund these waivers. The second issue raised with regard to student recruitment was the increases in undergraduate tuition for students not residents of New York State. While the Centers' recruitment goals call for more undergraduates from other states and nations, higher tuition rates are viewed as an impediment, even if they are notably less than the tuition rates of independent colleges and universities. The third issue raised was fees [in addition to tuition] assessed to undergraduate and graduate students. If, for undergraduates in particular, these are included in the determination of eligibility for and award of financial aid, as we believe they are, then this is not a problem requiring further concern at this time. 2. The "Academic Bill of Rights" This statement of college and university rights and duties of faculty, students and administration, with its emphasis upon several dimensions of diversity, notably political, may be assessed both as an ideal formulation and as a problematic implementation. As an ideal, it may be prima facie satisfactory in its recognition of various viewpoints and recommendation that these have representation. The problems, however, are in the implementation: What viewpoints? What representation? There are instances that justify the concerns the ABoR seeks to address: instructors who insist a political position be accepted by students, who do not tolerate opposing views, who enforce their insistence or intolerance by threat or assignment of low or failing grades. We cannot address the issues posed by the proponents of the ABoR by pretending there are no such problems. The question, then, is how to respond. The American Association of University Professors reply to the ABoR will not, in the judgment of some University Centers Senators, serve. That reply misleadingly portrays AAUP's ideal of academic freedom as universal reality. But the ABoR fails to recognize the realities of faculty and student beliefs and commitments and the impacts of these in the classroom. The feasible effective response to the problems of narrow and intolerant approaches, in classes and out, is to recognize these and address them. Every course and section in disciplines where beliefs and commitments come into play, i.e., especially in the humanities and many areas of the social sciences, should have a clear course description that includes the perspective from which the topics will be approached. No such course or section should be the only one required for the baccalaureate degree and, if at all feasible, not the only one required for a major or minor. Above all, we all need to emphasize with our students and also our colleagues that a major - if not the primary - function of a liberal education is to develop the capacity to think critically. This can only be pursued in settings where the consideration of multiple and conflicting views and positions is welcomed in deed and practice. William H. Baumer |
|
