On Proposal 6-02

MEMO

Date: November 12, 2001

To: Robert Keen, President of the Univeresity Senate

From: David Nelson, Dept of Biomedical Engineering

Subject: Response to Senate Committee Reports

Response to Senate Finance Committee report

The committee appears to have done a careful and thorough analysis of the savings and costs associated with the proposed merger. It is clear that, even ignoring hidden costs, there are substantial, real direct costs associated with the proposed merger. These costs are associated with resources promised to the combined department. Failure to fund those costs would represent a very serious breach of an explicit commitment made by the University to a funding agency, to "... fully support the necessary administrative costs for the Bioengineering Center, including salaries for the Director and support and clerical staff, beyond the grant period." (CJ Tompkins letter to P. Katona of Whitaker Foundation, 8/9/96). Those salaries are precisely the costs that are included as savings under the merger proposal.

Reneging on commitments to the funding agency may put the university at peril of legal action. At the very least, it will decrease the likelihood of success on future funding applications to The Whitaker Foundation and other funding agencies (private and governmental).
Some of the added costs associated with the merger are attributable to the two additional GTA positions promised the Chemical Engineering Department by the Dean of Engineering. There seems to be some sentiment that these costs are not real, as they may represent re-assigning existing GTA positions. The costs of the GTA positions are every bit as real as faculty line costs. If there are "extra" GTA positions in a given department, those positions can be eliminated from the university's general fund budget to help meet the cost reduction targets.
Among the hidden costs, potential enrollment losses are identified. These losses are liable to be significant. While applications for admission to the Biomedical Engineering program are currently running 15% ahead of last year, I have begun receiving e-mail inquiries from applicants who have heard of the budget cuts and merger during campus visits. There is great apprehension over the future of the program among students and potential students.

This potential enrollment loss is particularly troubling given the Biomedical Engineering program's record for enhancing the diversity of the engineering student body. Biomedical Engineering is unique among engineering programs in that a majority of the BSBE students are women. According to Mark Bowman of the Whitaker Foundation, Michigan Tech's proportion of women biomedical engineering students (62%) is the highest in the U.S. Downgrading this program, with the loss of identity, visibility, and departmental support, raises serious questions about the university's - and the college's - commitment to inclusiveness in its academic programs.

It is particularly noteworthy that the students attracted to this program are among the most qualified academically of all applicants to the university. This is illustrated by the fact that, of the 24 semi-finalists for the 2002 MTU Scholar Awards, five of them are planning to study biomedical engineering. Four of those semifinalists are women.

Response to Senate Administrative Policy Committee report

The findings of the committee are essentially correct. With regard to ABET accreditation (item #2), it should be noted that a re-organization will likely result in delaying the initial ABET accreditation by two years. The Biomedical Engineering faculty are preparing for an anticipated ABET accreditation visit in Fall, 2002. In the event of a merger, it would be unwise to have a merger during the first months of operation of a merged department, even assuming sufficient administrative time is available to commit to preparing for the accreditation visit. As the Dean of Engineering has stated that, if the ABET visit does not occur, the college would not support an accreditation visit until the next general review for other COE programs, which is to occur in 2004.