Response to Concerns of the 1988 NCA Evaluation Team

In 1988, the report prepared by the NCA Evaluation Team which visited on-site listed nine areas of concern, shown in bold print below. We have responded to each of these concerns over the past ten years, as follows:

Concern 1

The Library is not adequate for an expanded graduate/research mission.

The Library remains a challenge. Despite a 47% increase in annual library expenditures since 1988/89, from $1,855,000 to $2,719,000, some dissatisfaction with the library for graduate education and research persists. Thirty-nine percent of graduate students surveyed in 1997 were not satisfied with the library (see Chapter 7) and nine departments, five of them PhD-granting, cited the research and graduate collections as inadequate [6.2B8]. Although the increase in funding matches the growth in the general fund budget (in 1994, we ranked third among our eight benchmark institutions in the percentage of total expenditures incurred by the library), it is insufficient to keep pace either with the rapidly escalating cost of scientific and technical serials and monographs required for research and graduate education in engineering and the sciences (these serials constitute 92% of the materials budget), or with the growing cost of electronic technologies required for automation and electronic access to materials. In response, the library continues to expand interlibrary loan and document delivery services and to develop electronic formats for access and delivery of library materials. MTU’s peer institutions have been experiencing these same challenges with respect to building and maintaining quality research libraries.

Planned responses to library inadequacies include designating a portion of the 2000 capital campaign to library enhancements, and additional space for the library in a new Science and Information Resource Center. When the State authorizes its next capital outlay appropriation, this Center will receive highest priority by the University. See Chapter 10, Goal Committee 6 Report [6.2B8] and the Library Self-Study [2.6F5] for more detailed information on the library.

Concern 2

Protected classes (particularly Native Americans) remain underrepresented in the faculty, administration, and student body.

Since 1988, we have pursued multiple initiatives to improve the representation of women and underrepresented [2] groups on campus (see Chapters 4 and 6 and [6.2B2]). Our greatest success has been the increased representation of women (see Tables 2 and 3). From 1988 to 1996, the number of tenured/tenure-track women faculty grew by 71%, from 35 to 60, which represents an increase from 13% to 17% of the tenurable faculty. The increase was particularly significant in the engineering faculty, where numbers of women faculty grew from 2 in 1988 to 12 in 1996, representing a 7% increase in tenured/tenure-track women engineering faculty. The percentage of women students has increased somewhat from 23% in 1988 to 26% in 1996. In engineering, the percentage of women undergraduates grew from 16% to 20%. While this falls short of recruitment goals set by the MTU Presidential Commission for Women (PCW), we meet or exceed the national percentages of women in engineering.

Since 1988, the percentage of other underrepresented faculty (see Table 2) have grown from 12% to 15% of the tenured/tenure-track faculty. Except for Asian-Americans, candidate pools for underrepresented faculty in science and engineering remain small.

TABLE 2. Tenured/Tenure-Track Faculty—Women and Underrepresented Groups.

Group	1988	1996	% Change
Women	34	60	+76%
Percentage of Total Faculty	12%	17%
Asian-American	27	44	+63%
African-American	2	4	+100%
Hispanic-American	2	4	+100%
Native-American	1	1	0%
Total	32	53
Percentage of Total Faculty	12%	15%	+66%

Source: Institutional Analysis (Fall Headcount)

Enrollment of underrepresented students has increased slightly from 3% of total enrollment in 1988 to 4.2% today (see Table 3). Absolute numbers of underrepresented students have increased by 34%, from 197 to 263. In engineering, underrepresented students increased by 20% since 1988, from 129 to 155 students; this increase from 3% to 4% of the engineering student population tracks growth in the student body as a whole. Our success has been greatest with African-American and Native-American students.

TABLE 3. Student Enrollment—Women and Underrepresented Groups.

Group	1988	1996	% Change
Women	1,503	1,665	+11%
Percentage of Total Students	23%	27%
Asian-American	94	80	-17%
African-American	36	89	+147%
Hispanic-American	35	48	+37%
Native-American	32	46	+44%
Total	197	263
Percentage of Total Students	3%	4.2%	+34%

Source: Institutional Analysis (Fall Count)

Although we have not met our goal of 5.5% enrollment of underrepresented students, it has not been for lack of effort. We support an array of precollege academic programs to attract potential women and underrepresented students. In 1989 we established an Outreach and Multiethnic Program division, in 1993 we hired a full-time admissions counselor dedicated to recruiting in high schools with significant African-American populations, and in 1996 we added a Native American Outreach Coordinator in the Multiethnic Division to reestablish relations with high schools and community colleges with significant Native-American populations. Our location in a remote rural area with a cold physical climate, combined with the lack of a significant population from undrepresented groups in the community or University makes Michigan Tech unattractive for some underrepresented groups. Moreover, our predominant focus on engineering and science may reduce the pool of potential applicants. We must continue intensive recruitment efforts and programs to introduce and prepare underrepresented students for science and technology degrees in order to increase the pool of interested students. In addition, our current strategy to develop a broader range of programs in communications, business, and public policy may improve our ability to recruit underrepresented students.

We have also achieved some increased representation of women and underrepresented groups in the administration (see Table 4).

TABLE 4. Administrators—Women and Underrepresented Groups.

	1988		1996
Group	#	% of Total	#	% of Total
Women	273	42.4%	358	47.2%
Executive Managerial	3	6.8%	13	25.5%
Professional	46	25.6%	122	40.1%
Technical	14	23.0%	13	22.4%
Clerical	171	83.0%	163	90.6%
Skilled Craft	0	0.0%	0	0.0%
Service Maintenance	39	33.6%	47	37.6%
Underrepresented	15	2.3%	27	3.6%
Executive/Managerial	2	4.5%	5	9.8%
Professional	4	2.2%	13	4.3%
Technical	0	0.0%	2	3.4%
Clerical	8	3.9%	6	3.3%
Skilled Craft	0	0.0%	0	0.0%
Service Maintenance	1	0.9%	1	0.8%

Source: Institutional Analysis (Fall Headcount)

Concern 3

The annual reallocation of three percent of departmental budgets is corrosive to faculty morale.

The 3% reallocation ended in 1987/88. However, budget cuts continued through 1993/94, when the University administration instituted a 1% realignment program in order to provide for systematic reallocation of resources. One percent of every unit’s budget was automatically captured by central administration, and the resulting pool of captured funds was reallocated in the strategic planning process (see Chapter 2). The intent was to provide a mechanism to

• realign resources internally to support new initiatives;
• stimulate reassessment of department and unit priorities and activities; and
• provide financial autonomy and responsibility to the colleges, schools, and administrative units.

While it was anticipated that departments would respond to the realignment initiative by reevaluating the need for positions, in fact a majority of departments chose to reduce their supplies, services, and equipment (SS&E) budgets. Morale problems developed in units where realignment was ineffective. After much consultation and discussion across campus, including an evaluation of the process in the departmental self-studies, the administration decided to put a moratorium on the 1% realignment for 1997/98. In response to the Board’s concern that we reallocate resources, we will be implementing a pilot position control program. After July 1, 1997, any vacant positions will revert to the Provost, and be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. To resolve the problem with depleted SS&E budgets, in 1997/98 these budgets will increase by 4% across the board.

Concern 4

Cancellation of faculty seed research and creativity programs is inconsistent with the University mission and negatively impacts faculty recruitment.

Partly in response to an internal report on faculty development [5.2A], the Vice Provost for Research and Dean of the Graduate School reestablished a Faculty Development Grant program (now renamed Faculty Scholarship Grant program) in 1995/96 and has funded it for two years at $70,000 annually on a competitive basis. The Vice Provost also administers a $200,000 start-up pool for new faculty, a $400,000 matching pool for grant cost-share, and the Research Excellence Fund (REF), appropriated annually by the State of Michigan at approximately $1.3 million since the 1980s. The REF is distributed internally on a competitive basis, but is restricted to certain types of research (see Chapter 8). Initially a line-item in the State budget with reporting requirements, it was rolled into the general operating budget in 1995/96; however, the administration continues to support the use of REF funds to grow graduate programs and faculty research.

Faculty development funds have continuously been awarded by the Faculty Development Committee, primarily to bring speakers and researchers from other institutions to campus. With the creation of the Center for Teaching, Learning, and Faculty Development in 1996/97 and the appointment of a new director, these funds will be awarded to encourage professional development and creativity in teaching, as well as personal development.

Concern 5

General Education requirements reflect multiple compromises rather than a University-wide commitment to a well-defined program.

We recognize that general education is a General Institutional Requirements (see Appendix 1), and it has been a challenge to develop it in the context of a technological university. Our General Education program is relatively young. After six years of planning, we implemented a University-wide General Education program in 1985, established a Committee on General Education to review general education curricula on a continuing basis, and graduated the first students under that program in 1989. In common with most general education programs, MTU’s program has 64 credits of courses leading to baccalaureate-level skills and perspectives (see the Undergraduate Catalog [1.3A, pp. 177ff.]). It also contains a unique requirement for nine credits of thematic study, designated as a “thematic cluster.” Due to the very structured curricula of many engineering majors, students often have little schedule flexibility and few free electives, which impedes completing the thematic cluster. This has created some conflict between the academic desire for integrated courses in general education and the practicalities of course scheduling, which has not been resolved despite several efforts.

Although the Committee on General Education continuously evaluates proposed changes to thematic clusters, no significant evaluation of the general education program as a whole has occurred since its inception. Moreover, MTU’s general education program was not designed with assessment in mind, and program goals were not clearly articulated. In 1996/97, an ad hoc committee of faculty and staff restated the philosophy and goals (see Chapter 3) in terms that will allow assessment of student academic achievement in general education. We have already begun to conduct this assessment as a partial basis for reform.

In addition, over the past eight years, we have explored developing a First Year Program across the curriculum. Most recently, in June 1997, we held an on-campus workshop on the First Year Experience, funded by the Michigan Department of Education. Although these efforts to develop a coherent First Year Program have not yet come to fruition, two initiatives taken in 1997 promise to develop a stronger University-wide commitment to a well-defined program of general education: The appointment of a Vice Provost for Instruction to coordinate and provide oversight on curricular matters, and the appointment of a task force to study the proposed calendar change. This change, if approved, would mandate a complete reevaluation of the curriculum in all programs, and provide a new opportunity for developing a well-defined First Year Program that would redefine the current general education system.

Concern 6

University catalogs do not accurately represent actual curricular content of some programs.

Since 1988, we have improved the way in which we represent course offerings in the catalog by designating the timing and frequency of course offering as either annually, in alternate years, or on demand. In 1995/96, Institutional Analysis conducted an audit of all courses which had not been offered in two years, and requested that departments take action to either remove the offerings or revise them.

The University Catalogs produced from 1988–1995 included information for both undergraduate and graduate students. Since 1995, a separate Undergraduate Catalog and Graduate School Bulletin have been published.

Concern 7

Funding for Graduate Assistantships/Fellowships has not increased to reflect the University’s emphasis on graduate studies and research.

The number of supported graduate students has increased from 403 in 1989 to 488 in 1996. While the total number of supported students has thus increased by 21%, the percentage supported remains about the same at 80%. See Chapter 7 for additional information.

Concern 8

Faculty and students perceive a significant problem in effective communication by the central administration.

When President Tompkins arrived on campus in 1991, he instituted several mechanisms for improved communication, including the Student Advisory Board; a Presidential Cabinet with representatives from faculty, staff, and students; Convocation; and Presidential Commissions for Women and Diversity with faculty, staff, and student representatives. In addition to these formal communication mechanisms, he established a continuing series of well-attended annual breakfasts and luncheons with faculty, staff, and students at the President’s residence.

The President also restructured University administration to facilitate discussion of issues across units and push responsibility down through the system to Deans, Directors, and Department Chairs. The linchpin of restructuring was the new position of Executive Vice President and Provost (see Figure 2).

FIGURE 2. University Organization Chart.*

Board of Control

President

Vice President for Governmental Relations and Secretary to the Board of Control

Internal Audit

Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer to the Board of Control

Accounting Services

Mail Services

Purchasing

Executive Vice President and Provost

Academic Units

College of Engineering

College of Sciences and Arts

Library

School of Business and Economics

School of Forestry and Wood Products

School of Technology

Administrative Units

Athletics

Budget, Planning, and Faculty Personnel

Enrollment Management

Facilities Management

Human Resources

Institutional Analysis

Residential Services

Retail Operations

University Cultural Enrichment

Vice Provosts

Dean for Student Affairs

Information Technology

Instruction

Research and Dean of the Graduate School

Senior Vice President for Advancement and University Relations

Alumni Association

Corporate and Foundation Relations

Marketing Research

Michigan Tech Fund

University Relations

Affirmative Action Officer

* This figure includes full titles; hereafter, titles will be abbreviated.

The Provost communicates regularly with the campus community by meeting at least monthly with the “MOB” groups (academic deans and administrative directors) and the new Academic Forum (academic deans and department chairs); annually with all departments on campus; and monthly with officers of the University Senate and Undergraduate Student Government. He has also invited Graduate Student Council officers to meet with him on a regular basis.

Shared governance has also been a vehicle for communication (see Chapters 2 and 6). The Faculty Senate became the University Senate in 1995 with an expanded representation of professional staff. Senate and University task forces and committees have become a regular mechanism to address significant issues such as writing a new faculty handbook; enhancing the Center for Teaching Excellence (now the Center for Teaching, Learning, and Faculty Development); and revising the sabbatical leave and promotion and tenure policies.

As a result of these varied initiatives, both the Report from the 1996 Administrative Evaluation Commission [5.3E], and faculty and staff surveys conducted in 1997 (see Chapters 6 and 9), gave central administration high marks for communication, and reflect the fact that the University community now has ready access to senior administrators.

Concern 9

The proliferation of engineering education in Michigan undermines the primary mission of MTU.

The primary mission of MTU is education and research in science and engineering. Since 1988, we have endeavored to broaden our programs to appeal to a wider range of students. New two- and four-year programs in the Schools of Forestry and Technology, new masters programs in social science, and new PhD programs in humanities, computer science, and mathematics all speak to success in this endeavor.

With respect to engineering education, despite competing with 12 engineering programs in the State, we continue to enroll the third largest number of engineering students, after University of Michigan–Ann Arbor and Michigan State University. We also have maintained a stable “market share” of engineering students: Our pattern of enrollment since 1966 closely tracks the pattern of college freshmen entering engineering (see Figure 3).

FIGURE 3. Planned Career Fields of College Freshmen—Engineering: 1966–1995.

Source: The American Freshman: National Norms for Fall 1995 and Institutional Analysis

Nonetheless, we have experienced declining enrollments since 1991, for three reasons. Most significant was the decision to "right-size" Electrical Engineering, raising admission standards to decrease undergraduate enrollment; the resulting drop in the faculty-undergraduate student ratio provided an opportunity to grow graduate and research programs in the department. A second reason for the recent decline is graduation of a large cohort produced by unusually large new enrollments in 1990–2. A third reason is the declining number of 18-year-olds in the State.

NEXT