Reporter Volume 25, No.24 April 14, 1994

UNIVERSITY AT BUFFALO
State University OF NEW YORK

Provost Aaron Bloch, 
Capen Hall, 
State University of New York at Buffalo.

April 7, 1994.

Dear Dr. Bloch,

	On behalf of The Provost's Advisory Committee on The Structure
of The Arts and Sciences, I am enclosing for your consideration our
report. This letter will summarize our findings and conclusions and
should be read as an integral component of the report proper. Ours is
a diverse institution with a corresponding diversity of opinions. You
will not, therefore, be surprised to learn that we did not arrive at a
unanimously accepted set of conclusions or recommendations nor did we
address all of the issues to a conclusion. Our report attempts,
however, to represent fairly both the diversity of opinions that the
Committee holds and the changes that we believe overall are necessary.
	The fundamental issue that the University faces is how to
execute its tripartite missionQteaching, scholarship and service
against a background of major changes in public expectations, State
and Federal support and disciplinary boundaries. We have attempted to
consider the structures, functions and priorities that will best aid
the execution of our mission in the context of the charge to the
CommitteeQthe organization of Arts and Sciences. We have discussed the
issues extensively in committee, with our colleagues, through the
existing literature, with outside consultants and we have visited
other universities. Critical areas have become defined and directions
are indicated.
	The Committee has discussed extensively the issues of
undergraduate education, not in the context of whether it is more or
less important than scholarship and service, but rather in the context
of the functional complementarity that must necessarily exist between
all of these components in the successful execution of the University
mission. Without a committed and responsible approach to undergraduate
education by the University both scholarship and service are
compromised. The recommendations that follow focus on the organization
of Arts and Sciences and the delivery of undergraduate
educationQissues defined in the charge to the Committee.

RECOMMENDATION 1. THE DELIVERY OF GENERAL UNDERGRADUATE EDUCATION

The planning, resources, responsibility and accountability for
undergraduate education must be in the faculty or faculties that
deliver the component coursework.

	In the present organization, the delivery of undergraduate
education, particularly, but not exclusively, its general component,
is seriously dysfunctional. As outlined in the accompanying report and
materials, this dysfunctionality has several origins, including lack
of faculty and administrative commitment and accountability, absence
of linkage between responsibility and resources and ill-defined and
extended lines of communication. These deficiencies are compounded by
the decision to mandate a curriculum without regard to resources.
	A variety of structures may, in principle, ensure the
implementation of our first recommendationQour present structure most
assuredly does not. The majority of the Committee, but with strong
dissent and reservation by a significant minority, favored the
formation of a Faculty of Arts and Sciences headed by a single dean
and composed from the existing faculties of Arts and Letters, Social
Sciences and Natural Sciences and Mathematics. This Faculty would be
responsible for the general component of undergraduate education in
addition to the education of its own specific majors. This is a model
shared by many institutions that we regard as our peers including the
University of Indiana at Bloomington, visited by two members of the
Committee. It is certainly possible to consider structures other than
a single Faculty of Arts and Sciences, but alternative combinations of
existing Faculties found little favor with the Committee.
	The issue of undergraduate education is also believed to be
solvable within the existing Faculty structure provided that the
tenets explicit in recommendation number one are in place. In
particular, the implementation and coordination of the delivery of
undergraduate education would become a specific responsibility of the
three faculties. This is also a model adopted by others of our peer
institutions, including Ohio State University at Columbus also visited
by two members of the Committee. This organization could serve as an
intermediate to the formation of a single Faculty of Arts and Sciences
and would permit some further time for detailed analysis. In either
model, responsibility and accountability for the undergraduate
curriculum, together with the attendant resources, must be present in
the principal Faculty or Faculties. A vice-provost for Undergraduate
Education will serve to ensure that the responsibility for courses in
particular disciplines is housed in the corresponding Faculties and
departments, monitor the coordination of courses with student demand
and assume responsibility for the advisement process.

	In either model the role of the existing Undergraduate College
has been effectively assumed by the new structure. This is necessary
and consistent with our recommendation.

	Regardless of the model adopted, several management changes
should be considered both within and without the principal Faculties
to relieve the current problems in undergraduate education. These
changes should include:

a. Reexamination of the existing undergraduate curriculum with respect
to its appropriateness for our mission (i.e., is one defined
curriculum that does not accommodate student choice in their best
interest?), educational objectives, resource availability, quality and
outcome. Several members of the Committee noted that the existing
curriculum appears to be a causal factor in our current problems in
undergraduate education. 
b. Enrollment management to better fit enrollment size and demands to
available resources. 
c. The creation of flexible resources to permit the implementation of
the undergraduate curriculum. 
d. Analysis of course size, content and availability to eliminate
minimally occupied, duplicate or rarely given courses. 
e. Examination of existing department size and function to determine
whether the existing structures are appropriate both in terms of size
and number.

Consideration and implementation, where necessary, of these changes
should have system benefits that extend to and beyond undergraduate
education.

RECOMMENDATION 2. IMPACT ON GRADUATE EDUCATION AND RESEARCH ESPECIALLY
IN THE Sciences

	The proposed changes in recommendation number one will likely
not impact graduate education and research in any of the disciplines.
However, we recommend additional study to focus specifically upon the
directions of graduate education, its responsibilities and
accountabilities, and the role of interdisciplinary groups versus
departments and the assembly of allied disciplines into new Faculties.

	A fundamental dilemma faced by the Committee was whether in
organizing for undergraduate education, structures or processes are
imposed that impede interdisciplinary activity, graduate education and
research. On balance, but with strong dissent or reservation from some
members, particularly those from the experimental sciences, the
Committee does not believe that implementation of the previous
recommendation in either form will necessarily negatively affect
graduate education and research. Evidence from other universities
suggests that structure appears not to be the primary impetus for
interdisciplinary work and that the formation of interdisciplinary
groups or centers derives from extrastructural considerations. These
centers often do not have permanent structure since they fluctuate
with changes in technology, societal demand and interests and funding
opportunities.
	The Committee recognizes in its report that graduate education
and research are under stress at Buffalo and that changing
disciplines, funding patterns and expectations make further change
both probable and desirable. We believe that further consideration of
the organization of graduate education is both desirable and
necessary. Such considerations should include the following:

a. The responsibility of the University for graduate education
and national priorities.
b. The graduate student as a student and employee.
c. Graduate education, the roles of departments and disciplines
and interdisciplinary groups.
d. Organization of disciplines into new structuresQFaculties of
Biological Sciences, Chemical Sciences etc.
e. The role of the Graduate School as a central focus or a
paper-processing entity.

SUPPORT OF FINE ARTS

	The formation of a separate faculty of Visual and Performing
Arts should not be implemented without further study.

	Formation of a separate Faculty of Visual and Performing Arts
is not central to either general undergraduate education or to
graduate education and research. A variety of models exist nationwide
for the location of Fine Arts in university structures. The Committee
heard and held mixed opinions. Critical to any decision are the issues
of adequate University support for the new Faculty, the necessity for
generating external support and the impact that the creation of a new
Faculty would have on the remaining components of Arts and Letters.
	A decision to create a separate Faculty of Visual and
Performing Arts should be made only after the issue of the
organization of Arts and Sciences has been decided. A separate Faculty
becomes a more plausible alternative with the formation of a Faculty
of Arts and Sciences. The Committee suggests that further study of
models of support and organization at other universities is necessary.
This can be done while other reorganizations are taking place.
However, the Committee recognizes the need for strengthening this
component of the University, regardless of structural changes.

INSTITUTIONAL IDENTITY OF THE HUMANITIES

	The Committee did not study this issue adequately and has no
specific recommendations to offer. We believe, however, that the
proposed organizational changes that we do support will benefit,
directly and indirectly, the humanities since they will strengthen
undergraduate education and rationalize resource allocation. Several
committee members noted the merit of including the humanities in
increasingly recognized interdisciplinary activities.

FINAL COMMENTS

	The issues before us are not primarily structural, rather they
are functional. Universities in North America have adopted a variety
of structures with which to fulfill their missions. Many different
structures appear to be compatible with success and there is no single
"best solution or magic structure." However, it is certainly true that
structures may impede function and they may dissipate energies into
nonproductive paths. This is certainly the case for undergraduate
education at Buffalo. The best structure will be one that optimizes
commitment, responsibility and accountability for the University-wide
mission. I hope that the deliberations of this Committee will be
regarded in this light.

Respectfully submitted on behalf of The Provost's Advisory Committee
On The Organization of Arts and Sciences by,

David J. Triggle.