faculty forum

Academic Futures Open Forum: Graduate Student Success, May 4, 2018

Anonymous — Mon, 21 May 2018 17:58:12 +0000

Academic Futures Open Forum: Graduate Student Success, May 4, 2018 Anonymous (not verified) Mon, 05/21/2018 - 11:58

Academic Futures Town Hall Notes

Graduate Student Success

May 4, 2018

General:

Jeff Cox and committee members gave an overview of the committee’s work to date on this topic, including conversations about financial support, opportunities for academic and professional engagement and building communities, career readiness, and mentoring resources and structures.

Comments and Questions:

The following issues were raised:

We need more academic writing support in the writing center.
- Writing center resources are in high demand.
- Writing center support supplements the relationships with advisors especially when it’s difficult to get in to see your advisor.
- They help go over your advisor’s comments and holistically help improve pieces as well as the manuscript as a whole.
- They are valued as an outside reader.
- Additional workshops and retreats would be useful – they currently fill up fast and graduate students are turned away. Finding space for multi-day retreats (same room/building) is an issue, especially during the school year.
- The lack of support over the summer and during “Maymester” is an issue.
Funding for graduate students at the departmental level is inadequate especially during the summer (housing, etc.) – students typically keep working over the summer.
Career readiness obstacles:
- It is difficult for CS to engage students throughout their process. There are few opportunities/avenues for Career Services to get in front of the majority of graduate students, and those opportunities are frequently too early in their programs.
- By the time students engage, it is late in the process and they cannot take advantage of suggestions (e.g. networking).
- Career readiness needs to be expected and integrated into the student experience – need consistent engagement.
We need a campus-wide discussion and support on the expectations and minimum support for graduate students (space, advising, mentoring, etc.) – it currently varies widely from department to department.
Financial support is an issue. Historically, a student could work part-time or full-time on the side to support themselves through college. Today, even when students max out their student loans, they still have issues meeting basic needs of housing, child care, etc.
We need more support and career readiness efforts for various career tracks beyond the traditional academic path – graduate students feel like the opportunities are all geared towards academic professions vs. options in industry.
- Need more information and cross-departmental communication, support, and seminars on realistic options within their field. We can currently provide general help such as how to do a job search, but we need more focus on where students can go within their fields.
- GTP seems to have an effective communication/networking method that could be used as a model for communication that is focused on the industry track.
- Have workshops over the summer and throughout the year.
- Currently, the overhead work to bring in outside experts is all “volunteer” work, so efforts are inconsistent.
We need to find a way for graduate students to have a bigger voice in decisions and programs that affect them. Two-way communication is currently an issue and gives the impression that graduate students are not valued when in fact they may just not know about specific initiatives or events. Currently, communication depends on individual faculty/departmental units to spread the word – we need a better mechanism.
We also need include post-docs in the Academic Futures discussions – many of their concerns are similar to those of the graduate students.
There is a greater need these days for counseling services.
- Graduate students can easily feel alienated, especially when ABD.
- Our current counseling services are overwhelmed.
- Student fees survey suggests that they are happy giving fees to CAPS and UGGS, and they would like to see more of the CAPS resources.
We need to improve mentoring and move past the generational shift between old-style and new-style mentoring. When the link between the assigned advisor and/or assigned faculty member are ineffective or gets broken, students are left floundering. There is a lot of literature and research on how best to mentor. We can use models that have been built in industry outside of academia.
We need to improve the processes around assigning space.
- The space allotment process is opaque and frustrating, and seems to be based on who you know and how much influence they have rather than an organized process.
- One idea is to have town hall meetings on new buildings to hear plans and improve input.
- We need to consider a space-audit.
- We need more communal space.
- Graduate students would like to have a seat at the table.

Off

Traditional

White

Academic Futures Open Forum: Staff Success, May 2, 2018

Anonymous — Mon, 07 May 2018 17:24:37 +0000

Academic Futures Open Forum: Staff Success, May 2, 2018 Anonymous (not verified) Mon, 05/07/2018 - 11:24

Academic Futures Town Hall Notes

Staff Success

May 2, 2018

Comments and Questions:

Participants expressed their appreciation for the AF process and their ability to be involved in it. They urged that the campus include a broad range of staff members in all such discussions. Staff very much want to identify with the mission of the university and to be part of its processes.

The following issues were raised:

Tuition Benefit: (see white paper on this subject):
- Staff have difficulty using the tuition benefit, which is of great importance to them. Now only 4% take advantage of the benefit. There are too many barriers to using the benefit, including being admitted into a college and complex process to navigate.
- It would be good if the tuition benefit could be used at other institutions, including community colleges and places that have programs, such as horticulture, that we don’t have.
- Right now it seems as if tuition benefits are hard to use for online courses; hard to get into online classes.
- This benefit could be important to develop mid-level management. It is a way to invest in ourselves.
How do we measure staff success?:
- What is our retention rate?
- What percentage of our staff engage in professional development?
- Do we have clear career paths?
- To what degree do staff feel aligned with the strategic imperatives? It is perhaps easier to see how staff connect with student success than innovation (though people noted the CFO’s innovation awards) and impacting humanity (though organized staff volunteering was put forward).
- Similar to the Unified Student Experience, having a Unified Staff Experience with a single avenues to navigate the information they need in their day-to-day roles.
Child Care/Elder Care:
- This is a clear and pressing need.
- Parental leave benefit much appreciated
Inclusive Excellence:
- We need to make sure that diversity, inclusion, gender parity are not just token phrases but things we act on. The lack of child care, for example, has an impact on gender parity.
Housing Costs
- It is an issue.
Professional Development:
- Staff should be encouraged to engage in professional development and provided with various ways to do that with supervisors incentivized to encourage professional development
- Staff should be encouraged (not discouraged) from engaging in service such as Staff Council.
- We need to do more to train managers how to handle their people.
- We need to figure out what managers need. Perhaps run a survey just for them.
Creating links between staff groups:
- Just as faculty want interdisciplinary, inter-unit connections, so do staff want to have ways to link various operations. Such connections offer possibilities for cross-pollenated ideas.
Focused Meetings:
- It was suggested that AF consider holding meetings for people in: facilities management; housing and dining; all auxiliary services.

Off

Traditional

White

Academic Futures Open Forum: Technology & Education – Online & Distance Learning, May 1, 2018

Anonymous — Mon, 07 May 2018 17:22:54 +0000

Academic Futures Open Forum: Technology & Education – Online & Distance Learning, May 1, 2018 Anonymous (not verified) Mon, 05/07/2018 - 11:22

Academic Futures Town Hall Notes

Technology & Education – Online & Distance Learning

May 1, 2018

Jeff Cox and committee members:

Brief update on the Academic Futures process and the committee’s current thinking and status on this topic. Highlights about this topic included:

We currently follow an “uncoordinated brilliance” model of using technology for education. We need to establish a cohesive vision and strategy.
Students are the primary stakeholders, but we’re also including faculty and staff success as part of the conversation.
Technology can be used to enhance our connection to the community and further improve our reputation.
We need to determine how to overcome resistance and encourage broader acceptance of using technology.
How can/does using technology support other topics like interdisciplinary education and inclusive excellence?

Comments and Questions:

How did we get to our current state of “uncoordinated brilliance”?
- As a campus, we never reached consensus on what online/distance education should look like, so work grew organically.
What other institutions or models should we adopt/adapt?
- We haven’t approached it in that way. There are different examples for different pieces. Arizona State has an interesting model for professional masters. MIT has some interesting approaches. We have heard that we don’t need to compete with what our peers are doing (some of whom are far ahead of us). Instead, we need to find our areas of strength and create a solution that gives us a competitive advantage in those areas. We need to find out what works for us strategically.
The Southern New Hampshire (SHNU) model makes R1 Research Universities uncomfortable – that model uses mostly adjunct professors to teach a stable set of courses. We need to recognize that we have high-powered intellectuals on campus who, with a little help on creating online courses, could really engage. We need an online approach that is more tethered to a university of this caliber.
Faculty think of the SNHU model when they hear “online” and bristle against online education. We need good communication about what we mean by “online”.
Students want personalized educational experiences based on collaboration in both teaching and research.
What considerations are being given to the pedagogical differences in teaching online courses?
- That’s a good question. We have several practices that currently exist (CE, professional masters, FTEP, GTP, etc.) and experts in those areas. But faculty don’t know which of those doors to go through, so we end up with a de facto competition on where to go and how/where to create a course. We need to define the cohesive model/continuum and know what doors there are and how to utilize the experts.
We don’t want to create bad online versions of in-person teaching – we need to use the strengths of technology.
As a campus, we haven’t come to a definition of “presence” in the different teaching modalities. Presence is multi-faceted and needs practice.
Metrics used to measure the success of technology may not be the same as measuring lecture hall courses. We need to determine what metrics are needed, and then measure/provide feedback in real time.
Students want faculty to use technology well, or not use it at all. They don’t want technology for technology’s sake. They report that they get distracted by other students’ laptops/devices. Technology needs to be seamless in the learning experience.
Faculty are concerned about not using technology well and losing control of the class.
In the professional masters programs, all courses support both distance and in-person. The ZOOM tool is used for team dynamics. None of the faculty have had much trouble in using the tools.
“Hybrid” teaching (part online, part in-person) is part of the discussion of the continuum of using technology in teaching as it can leverage both in-person and online models. The hybrid model helps on the issue of classroom availability and could also help on housing costs (a remote student could just come and stay for a couple of weeks for in-person/team activities).
Students still want to participate in class even if they physically cannot be there in person (e.g., at home sick, on field study, working, etc.). This allows them to keep up with the courses. Flexibility is necessary.
Students don’t care which learning management system (LMS) is used, but they would like all faculty to use the same one. It’s difficult to find all the grades and assignments in all the different systems. We need to at least pick which one we use for grades, which one for assignments, etc. and use the right tool(s) based on its strengths.
Technology is often an afterthought and faculty don’t know how to use it effectively. We need some baseline training on the technology in the right sequence. Discussing pedagogical approaches without understanding the language of LMS’s is like taking Spanish 4 without having a basic working understanding about the Spanish language.
Most LMS’s are typically not good tools for richer dialogue and debate beyond a basic discussion board. They don’t allow students to bring/post other information that creates a richer student experience. We need to integrate better dialogue tools.
There are many LMS’s out there – we should consider building a modular, interoperable, adaptable solutions so we can pick the right tool for the course.
We could consider universal design for learning.
Universal design could be a starting point, but teaching is contextual and requires adaptation on a daily basis. Online teaching requires a different set of tools/adaptations/logic.
We will need to address structural issues (beyond the budget model) to incentivize online teaching and build in flexibility.
We have so many funding models on campus for courses that it is confusing to students.
Certain colleges/departments have put disincentives in place for creating/taking online courses. Some archaic policies exist that place restrictions on how many online courses will count towards a degree. The mode of delivery is irrelevant – courses should be the same quality and rigor regardless of whether it is online or in-person.
Students need support to navigate the online modality (time management, self-regulation, etc.).
We need to get broader input from students beyond UGS – graduate teacher programs would be another source of student input.
Online should be an enhancement to rather than a replacement for the typical college experience.
As a public institution, we can serve students and communities no matter their circumstances. We are not serving as many parts of the community as we could be. Technology can help us do that. We can serve Colorado as well as other states that are unable to serve their communities.

Off

Traditional

White

Academic Futures Open Forum:Keeping the Public in a Public Research University, April 26, 2018

Anonymous — Mon, 07 May 2018 17:21:16 +0000

Academic Futures Open Forum:Keeping the Public in a Public Research University, April 26, 2018 Anonymous (not verified) Mon, 05/07/2018 - 11:21

Academic Futures Town Hall Notes

Keeping the Public in a Public Research University

April 26, 2018

Jeff Cox and committee members:

Brief update on the Academic Futures process and the committee’s current thinking and status on this topic.

Comments and Questions:

There is agreement on focusing on the public good and democratic mission as part of the definition of a “public research university”.
We need to value public engagement and service learning.
We need to value serving the community, including different ways that different faculty can and want to contribute (e.g., faculty of color may have additional, unique ways to contribute).
We need to integrate “inclusive excellence” as part of the public engagement process rather than addressing it as an afterthought.
This phase of the process includes identifying values that will be used in the next phase for determining “how” we need to address issues.
Structural changes around admissions need to occur to address our commitment to the state and to diversity/inclusiveness that helps students see a clear path toward CU. Utah has made some structural changes that have led to good results. Georgia is using lottery money to pay for higher education for students that keep their grades up.
It’s not just about what we value, but also how we structure to support those values.
We need to focus on public education for the public good. The space initiative has had success - we could do the same in other areas (e.g., health initiatives) by committing resources to tackle issues for our community. This leads to a more humanistic liberal arts education and increases the value of the Arts and Humanities.
We need to have strategic conversations and planning around enrollment and admissions (who do we want? why do we want them? how do we get them here? how do we support them once they are here?). This includes conversations about ACO students. None of the other current campus initiatives are having conversations about the admissions process. We need to be acting on our values to make decisions about who we invite to participate in the CU community.
We need to welcome a broad range of students and give them changes to try out different things to determine their interests.
We also need to look at advising models.
We need to look at affordability and have goals that students graduate debt-free. Having goals like this is important even if we don’t think we can get 100% there.
We don’t see any independent campus journalism producing serious, investigative journals – is that a hole in the public university model?
Should that type of journalism effort be part of a public university (paid for by government funding) or should it be outside of the government-funded sphere and done by and independent entity?
We do need a mechanism for careful and reflective conversation along with transparency and communication that builds trust.
How do we promote the notion and value of public scholarship and encourage and support it?

Off

Traditional

White

Academic Futures Open Forum: Interdisciplinary Teaching, Research & Creative Work, April 24, 2018

Anonymous — Mon, 30 Apr 2018 16:03:16 +0000

Academic Futures Open Forum: Interdisciplinary Teaching, Research & Creative Work, April 24, 2018 Anonymous (not verified) Mon, 04/30/2018 - 10:03

Academic Futures Town Hall Notes

Interdisciplinary Teaching, Research & Creative Work

April 24, 2018

Jeff Cox and AF Committee Members:

Brief update on Academic Futures and its work on Interdisciplinary work.

Comments and Questions:

Better access to equipment and instrumentation is important to collaborative research and teaching – we need shared equipment and spaces (not hidden away in an individual’s lab). This not only opens a door to interdisciplinary teaching and research, but also reduces research startup costs/time.
Departmental funding models are a barrier for interdepartmental collaboration (space, equipment, etc.).
Our top scientists have been moved to the outskirts of campus, reducing the opportunities for students to access labs and scientists (e.g., between classes).
From an administrative view, we don’t have a home for strong interdisciplinary programs. Many interdisciplinary ideas come from the institutes. We need administrative structures to support interdisciplinary programs.
Undergraduate interdisciplinary efforts run into department power structures – many good ideas die running into outdated reward systems/structures. We need to take a hard look at the cultural barriers and decide if it’s really something we want to do.
We have not exploited the interdisciplinary opportunities in the Arts, Humanities & Social Sciences well enough – these could really take off.
Many interdisciplinary efforts get hung up on the idea that they have to be “self supporting”.
We need to look at how to give credit for non-curricular activity (e.g., certifications, badges, etc.) – there is a lot of training that is needed and is going on (technology, research, data analysis, etc.). This training cuts across disciplines. It would benefit students in getting jobs if they can show that they are “certified” in those skills and would motivate them to take those training sessions. One solution could be micro-courses (1-2 credits) that all students need that can be focused at the department level.
We collect a lot of data across campus – it would be good to look at creating good data management practices and make data available across disciplines.
We typically have to fight for funding every semester for interdisciplinary work/ideas. We need sustainable funding models.
The RAPs are already housed with interdisciplinary offices – we need to value and promote these.
A&S has not tapped into interdisciplinary funding resources as well as the STEM side of the university.
Employers and corporations have an appetite for well-rounded students and are can more easily get behind donating to a university that provides interdisciplinary teaching and research experience that students can bring to the table.
The AF committee is looking at creating a problem-driven group of experts from many disciplines to engage with the community to identify, create, and manage interdisciplinary programs. Some examples are seen at Ohio State, Columbia, and Minnesota. This type of engagement with the community could help CU remain relevant.
Everything feels like “extra” burden – creating certificates, co-teaching, etc. This “extra” always seems to fall on the faculty shoulders on top of the mandated work.
We may not need certifications, we just need more flexibility and funding, e.g., create interdisciplinary majors/minors.
Innovation requires job structure and process changes. We need to assess those along with teaching load, credit, and student expectations. We need to address cultural/empowerment issues at the unit level.
We need flexibility around pre-requisites for interdisciplinary programs. This is especially true for summer classes.
Alumni are waiting in the wings to help once we determine the best ways to use them as a resource. They will be valuable in helping create networking opportunities.
Interdisciplinary programs and experiential education is critical for recruitment and retention. This needs to be integrated into degree expectations. All parents want their students to successfully “launch” and get good jobs.
We need to be mindful of student debt for interdisciplinary work – currently, many students have to add an extra semester to get the extra interdisciplinary courses.
If interdisciplinary experiences are not part of the curriculum, students won’t attend them (e.g. the Conference on World Affairs). We need to find ways that encourage students to participate. Departmental cultures are different in supporting interdisciplinary experiences that are not course work.
How do we find, recruit, and meet the needs of incoming students who have already created success not just a student, but in life as well (already engaged in their communities)?

Off

Traditional

White

Academic Futures Open Forum: Infrastructure, Space & Budget, April 24, 2018

Anonymous — Mon, 30 Apr 2018 15:57:57 +0000

Academic Futures Open Forum: Infrastructure, Space & Budget, April 24, 2018 Anonymous (not verified) Mon, 04/30/2018 - 09:57

Academic Futures Town Hall Notes

Infrastructure, Space & Budget

April 24, 2018

Jeff Cox:

Brief update on the Academic Futures process. Some of the ideas that have come up in many of the conversations in these areas include affordable childcare, affordability of housing, the need for more communal space, and unit togetherness.

Comments and Questions:

Infrastructure, Equipment, etc.

We need to incentivize good behavior. Many faculty tend to make decisions on what is good for them vs. what is good for the campus at large. Example – ordering more equipment without understanding the space, power, and cooling burdens. In many cases, there already exists extra capacity on current systems that they could just use.
We need to provide equitable access to equipment, instrumentation, space, and data and support departments and students that don’t have the funding to pay for those themselves.
The “collective good” is sometimes in conflict with individual needs. How to we create civic-mindedness?
We’ve tried to be entrepreneurial, but this can lead to quick, individual-based decisions that bypass normal procedures, especially if bypassing procedures is less painful than following procedures (bureaucracy, time, cost). This leads to fragmented, unsustainable solutions.
We need to find good examples, incentivize, and highlight stories where we are doing well (saving resources and costs, centralizing, etc.).
What are the obstacles to not sharing equipment?
- Resistance to change how you’ve been “doing science” for 30 years.
- Not seeing the benefits of sharing or the costs of not sharing (space, cooling, power, utility bills, etc.)
- How do we find out what’s already there and how it can be shared?
- No one responsible for finding ways to share it.
- Fear of not be able to get the time you need on the equipment if it is shared.
- Misperceptions about wait times and actual usage.
- Faculty like to build close, consultative relationships with their lab personnel who understand the research. In a shared environment, those relationships are less easy to build.
- Shared equipment/labs need both the technical experts (who understand the equipment and speak “tech-ese”) and the people-facing experts who know the research (who can speak “faculty-ese”).

Space

It is easy to misread what we need. In the case of space, one department thought the newer faculty would rather have open, flexible office areas, but it didn’t work, and has become a competitive disadvantage – deep work requires space to shut out distractions. We need to honor the type of work we do and create spaces and procedures that aligns with what we do.
For space planning, we need honest, transparent communication from departments to know what is available and/or could be better used. Everyone always asks for more space, but no one ever says “you can have this space back”. There is no incentive to give up space.
We have been hiring faculty without knowing if/where their office is going to be. Office space is an after-thought.
Paying faculty to give up space would create an incentive.

Budgets

Budgets go up and down every year without any information on why – we don’t understand the benchmarks of what is needed to get funding. There doesn’t seem to be any formula.
Many organizations are set up as auxiliaries or revenue centers and have to “charge” for every little thing – this kills good will. If it is a common good, it should be funded by the campus.
We tend to incentivize outputs rather than outcomes.
We have heard from the CFO that we are ok financially. We need to stop using a discourse of scarcity on the faculty side. The scarcity mindset leads to short-term decisions based on fear and anxiety. We need to make wise decisions based on effectiveness.
Our budget is actually in a growth mode. We need to leverage the message of “the common good” and have conversations on:
- Where are we ok?
- Where is there true scarcity?
- What should we stop doing?
We have a faculty leadership institute. We need to create the same thing on the administrative side and find ways to build relationships with key faculty members, operate from a common set of values and principles, and build better understanding and alignment between faculty and administrators.
We need to build the organizational structures and culture today for the “university of tomorrow”.
We have many governance structures across our campus that include both faculty and administrators that work well – we need to get more people engaged in actively participating in efforts.

Off

Traditional

White

Academic Futures Open Forum: Online & Distance Education, March 19, 2018

Anonymous — Wed, 04 Apr 2018 17:38:31 +0000

Academic Futures Open Forum: Online & Distance Education, March 19, 2018 Anonymous (not verified) Wed, 04/04/2018 - 11:38

Academic Futures Town Hall Notes

Online & Distance Education

March 19, 2018

This meeting began with the topic of online and distance education, but also included comments on how that connects to “keeping the public in public education” and the need for centralization of various service structures.

Comments:

CSU seems to have a clear online presence (online portal, etc.) We have different activities going on, but no clear presence or central place for students to go.
The technical platforms are important – they need to be smooth and operational.
As a university, we need to think about how we capitalize on online programs in a way that enhances our visibility and reputation. Topical areas are one way to do it. We have some topical areas of expertise that could be used to jumpstart/expand our online presence (e.g., sustainability, energy, climate science) that also brings CU’s unique value and strengths to the table.
We have a lot of things going on, but without campus-level coordination, they are hit or miss. We don’t yet have a centralized “shop” that has the skills, knowledge, design experience, etc., to help in creating online courses. Continuing Ed is the closest. CE is trying to help fill the gaps, but CE doesn’t have the staff/bandwidth to help on a campus-wide level. And, it leads to issues associated with CE as a revenue center (current students have to pay extra for a CE class even though they have already paid tuition). The campus needs to take ownership and responsibility of online courses and use a clear business model for the courses that takes into account when a student pays for them, how the credits count, and who gets the revenue.
Without some level of centralized support, we don’t have a coherent, cohesive approach to online education. Some of this is due to turf issues – we have a strong entrepreneurial sense of ownership, faculty tend to want to do it themselves and do it their way.
Some departments are resistant to developing online courses.
Online courses should not be “mandated”, but faculty should not be prevented from developing online course experiences if that is what they want to do.
What is the audience for online education – is it targeted to the current student body or for expanding the student body? The answers is “both”.
- CU has 50% fewer residential students taking online courses than our AAU peers. Students would like the option of more online courses.
- It also needs to be sufficient so that students who work, or who cannot be resident over the summer can continue to progress in their studies.
Creating online experiences for undergraduate courses is more difficult for many reasons than for graduate-level courses/programs.
We need to have some “crosstalk” between the online/distance education and “keeping the public in the public university” groups. There are a lot of creative opportunities at the local and state level to develop online programs that serve the public.

Examples:

Retraining/certification in areas experiencing downturns in industry (coal, gas, oil, etc.), targeting certification for other steady or growing industries in those areas. This would be especially helpful in areas where they cannot create programs themselves. For example, there are opportunities for training/certs in climate science & remote sensors – then those who are trained/certified become the supporters/sponsors for these programs in the future.
Online sustainability topics for rural communities – many communities feel experience a feeling of isolation. Creating a cohort and/or “communities of practice” between rural communities creates peer-to-peer networks and builds CU’s social capital.
Addressing teacher shortages in rural areas – working with the Education department to both place and provide online development for teachers (rural areas have a hard time retaining teachers without development opportunities).
Working with local and state-level economic development organizations and community leadership organizations to create other “credentialing in place” opportunities. This includes industry specific organizations, e.g., the Colorado Clean Energy organizations. These organizations are “begging” for help from universities, including CU, but CU doesn’t have the bandwidth (and faculty do not have the incentive) to participate in these types of efforts.
Tying online/distance education to public service and the mission of the university provides a better motivator for faculty to create online courses than just “more revenue”.
We need to find a way to fund and support these types of efforts that may not generate tons of revenue but are the “right thing to do”. This would enhance our reputation. There are sound business practices out there that can allow us to do this. Even if we can “just break even”, it would be good to pursue these efforts.
We need to figure out how we are showing up statewide with online education.

Part of this is an “engagement” issue with the public, especially at the local and state levels.
- Faculty are discouraged from interacting locally in order to focus on gaining national and international recognition. We need to create a different mindset around this – we have disconnected from the local and state communities.
- There are some K-12 activities, but they come and go, and are decentralized with very little communication across campus, so departments/faculty have to figure out how to engage on their own. Local school districts would love to participate in CU/K-12 activities, but there has been a lack of participation/outreach from CU.
We need clearer lines of communication and accountability around this – e.g., CSU has a VP of engagement who reports to the president of the university. This VP owns online education, K-12, community engagement, etc. Maybe we can find a workable model for CU between our current model and CSU’s.
We are currently very decentralized, and we know we have budget and funding challenges. But centralizing can help with bandwidth – we have too many people “reinventing the wheel”. And when a few people do it, they do it in a corner somewhere, and even if they are discovered, they don’t have the bandwidth to help others do it.
Some colleges/departments have put more resources into centralized staff positions within their departments to help on things like outreach and recruiting. Others departments are reluctant to grow staff and are suffering in those areas.
What about defining a faculty committee to focus on outreach & engagement (beyond recruiting). This could be done in lieu of adding staff. Community-based research is a component of our mission and scholarly work. Unfortunately, faculty are not incentivized to do this – they get mixed messages on how much time should be spent on “service” vs. “research”.

Off

Traditional

White

Academic Futures Open Forum: Research and Creative Work, Jan. 26, 2018

Anonymous — Tue, 30 Jan 2018 17:46:06 +0000

Academic Futures Open Forum: Research and Creative Work, Jan. 26, 2018 Anonymous (not verified) Tue, 01/30/2018 - 10:46

Academic Futures Open Forum: Research and Creative Work

Moderator: Jeff Cox

Points made and issues raised included:

Engaging students
1. There is a night-and-day difference in student experience and retention based on whether or not a student is engaged in a creative, meaningful way (vs. just sitting in lecture halls).
2. We need to find and/or create creative opportunities for students and create an effective way to communicate about those opportunities so that those working with and advising students know what is available. This is especially important for the ACO students.
3. We need a common first-year seminar for students that helps set expectations and culture and provides information on how to connect with other students. A weekly course helps reinforce these topics.
4. Residence hall programs that are hands-on help build community and creates cohorts.
5. We need to create a balance between curricular activity and creative, community-building activity.
6. We need to find a way to welcome and engage transfer students as well.
7. Creating ways to have conversations on interdisciplinary topics (e.g. climate change) helps engage students in a more meaningful way.
Non-academic units (e.g., libraries, museums) are untapped resources
1. Museums and libraries are willing to partner (e.g., exhibitions and discussion series) that can provide creative opportunities.
2. Non-academic units would like to work collaboratively across campus, but funding, communication, and tenure-recognition barriers exist.
Staff success
1. Staff contribute and do research on best practices at a high, professional level, but these efforts are not recognized or appreciated. For example, staff members speak at conferences as subject-matter experts, but this is usually not included in the current performance evaluation process.
2. Staff are able to apply for and get large NSF grants, but not for local CU-sponsored seed grants. Why? We have to find faculty that are willing (and have bandwidth) to “sponsor” the grant, but then the dollars go to that faculty/department rather than the non-academic unit that is doing the research. This prevents good ideas (and creative opportunities for students) from getting off the ground.
Culture
1. We seem to be silo’d between the “academic affairs” and “student affairs” sides of the university. Both sides are trying to serve students, but are not communicating or working collaboratively. We need to break down these barriers.

Off

Traditional

White

Academic Futures Open Forum: Student Success, Jan 22, 2018

Anonymous — Tue, 30 Jan 2018 17:44:43 +0000

Academic Futures Open Forum: Student Success, Jan 22, 2018 Anonymous (not verified) Tue, 01/30/2018 - 10:44

Academic Futures Open Forum: Student Success

Moderator: Jeff Cox

Points made and issues raised included:

Campus is understaffed
1. The percentage of faculty has kept pace with the percentage of new students, but the percentage of staff has declined.
2. Campus square footage has grown faster than both faculty and staff – there is not enough staff to adequately manage the square footage, especially in the research areas.
3. These situations affect the quality of work that staff can provide to students and faculty – this impacts staff morale as well as student and faculty success.
Campus is too decentralized – impacts ability for students to engage
1. Campus keeps growing at the edges, which makes it hard for both students and faculty to build communities and engage efforts going on in those areas. This especially impacts undergraduate research activities.
2. The decentralization makes it difficult for staff to cover the needs across the entire campus.
Student success
1. We should invest in an “early alert” system that tracks how students are doing in the classroom. We need leadership to encourage and incentivize using the system. We are behind our competition in having this type of technology/culture in place. These systems are not expensive and save dollars (increases retention) in the long run.
2. We need to provide impactful opportunities to engage. The current generation of students and future potential staff (millennials) do not feel the need to stay in one school/organization if it does not meet their needs – a lack of engagement means we will lose students and staff and their institutional knowledge.
Culture, decision-making
1. In many areas, there is a culture that faculty have the only say and staff do not, even when staff have good ideas on how to serve students – staff have to work unnecessarily hard to be heard and to justify their existence.
2. Staff need to be included in the discussion when making wide-sweeping decisions that impact student success (such as online vs. in-person student orientation) and/or how we work together. We need a way to find the people who are experts in specific topics and include them in the discussions before decisions are made.
3. We need to move from a “mine” culture to a “university first” culture to make both CU and students successful. There is a lot of waste, inefficiency, and confusion due to our silos.
Staff concerns
1. There are no career paths for staff. This leads to low morale and unnecessary attrition. The current performance evaluation process does not help develop staff for further responsibility or positions, and does not recognize above-and-beyond contributions.
2. The performance evaluation process is ineffective and inefficient – why do we have to do it on paper, scan it, print it, send to HR, etc.?
3. Staff do not feel that that their work is valued, important and appreciated. Even just “saying hello” would go a long way – it doesn’t take a lot of energy or dollars to treat people like people.
4. There is a territorial culture in many departments, which has created obstacles to working collaboratively. This stops our forward progress as we have to spend so much energy trying to get around obstacles. We can and should be working much more effectively in serving students.

Off

Traditional

White

Academic Futures Open Forum: Research Infrastructure, Dec 14, 2017

Anonymous — Tue, 02 Jan 2018 18:17:27 +0000

Academic Futures Open Forum: Research Infrastructure, Dec 14, 2017 Anonymous (not verified) Tue, 01/02/2018 - 11:17

December 14, 2017

Academic Futures Open Forum: Research Infrastructure

Moderator: Jeff Cox

Points made and issues raised included:

Funding model/processes for labs
1. Need to look at a funding model where the focus is on serving the scientific and educational needs rather than running a lab “like a business”. We are continually having to “charge” each other even just when we need to consult with lab/equipment experts. This decreases the likelihood of creativity and trying new things.
2. Need to fund research infrastructure and staff for the longer-term, beyond the first few years of initial support. There is currently no identified path (who to go to, process to follow) to request more funding beyond those first few years.
3. Need to find/create funding mechanisms beyond just grants, especially for labs and equipment that can be used for various educational opportunities.
4. Each lab seems to follow different processes around requests and reporting causing confusion and frustration. Need to standardize.
5. Financial model is very confusing and hard to explain to new faculty. It’s hard to understand the vision and how to meet it.
Staffing model for labs
1. We need appropriate staffing levels so that scientists can focus more time on research rather than managing infrastructure needs. Hiring staff is actually a cost avoidance issue when it comes to labor costs of scientists.
2. We need to staff the laboratories appropriately as the labs/equipment become underutilized when we are not staffed appropriately.
3. Finding and retaining staff to manage and maintain advanced instrumentation is difficult – need focus on retention and career path for lab staff and keep the intellectual expertise on campus. The advanced instrumentation that pushes the envelope requires special knowledge.
4. Losing a staff person results in “job creep” for the other members in the department, including “jobs” that are not our core knowledge, such as IT.
5. Need to create a campus-wide cohort/community for lab staff to increase communication and knowledge about what we have and how it can be better utilized.
“Centralized” model of research infrastructure
1. “Centralized” can mean both co-located equipment/facilities, as well as centralized management/support/availability for equipment located elsewhere.
2. Many research labs have very unique needs. But having some centralized support on how to create a lab (overhead, pricing structures, pricing sheets, other forms/reports) can help immensely.
3. Centralized facilities – standard processes, easier/centralized space planning & renovations, reduce startup cost/time for new labs. A centralized facility may be a cost, but also brings in grants that we only got because of the facility.
4. Staffing – qualified research staff can help manage, run and maintain equipment, learning/growth opportunities for staff, staff can help teach PI’s on equipment use, sample preparation, etc.
5. Center of intellectual activity – easier to connect and consult with other researchers and departments
6. Management & maintenance – centralized/better management of equipment service contracts, provide tech support to other labs, “end of life” for outdated equipment, knowing what we already have and where it is so we don’t buy more, savings on collective purchasing when possible.
7. Break down silos, reduce duplication – departments are not allowed to use other departments’ equipment, which means we have to purchase/maintain it ourselves, build our own labs, etc. This is unnecessary cost to the university.
8. Better equipment – pooling our infrastructure dollars means we could buy better equipment that makes us more efficient, saves lab space, and meets needs of several PI’s/departments. We currently want fierce autonomy over our own money, but we end up with duplicate “less-good” equipment.
9. R1 competitiveness - the expectations from funding agencies have changed and require certain infrastructure and collaborative characteristics to already be in place. This is also important for attracting and retaining top graduates. We are behind the curve.
10. Standardization – allows standardization for funding models, processes, staff titles and compensation, etc.
11. Increase sharing/utilization of equipment
  1. Next-gen scientists are not getting funded as much as our senior scientists. Sharing equipment (and policies/culture to do so) could move everyone further.
  2. PI’s can save money and avoid buying unnecessary equipment by finding equipment that is already in place.
12. Benefit to the community
  1. Startup packages and offer letters need to include a strategy on how it benefits the whole CU community, not just “what I need for my lab”. Need to buy to benefit the greater community, not just one PI.
  2. Access to labs and sharing equipment benefits the undergraduate research mission – helps students understand how science is done, experts teaching students. Students come here because they get to use state of the art equipment and work with world-class researchers.

Off

Traditional

White