|
Strategic Plan for the Department of Biology, Texas A&M University For years 2007, 2011 and 2015 |
|
By Vincent M. Cassone, Professor and Head The Department of Biology has experienced an unprecedented period of growth in new faculty and research programs in the past three years. This growth has provided us an opportunity to begin the process of near-, mid- and long-term strategic planning to become one of the top ten departments of Biology in the United States. This is itself a very difficult task, since the departments and programs we seek to surpass are themselves rapidly evolving with their own strategic plans for improvement. To make our target more difficult to hit, ranking of "life sciences" is highly variable among agencies that rank academic programs and, unlike physical sciences, the field of Biology is divided into many different disciplines. This situation can be so confusing and arbitrary that one could make a reasonable case for ignoring these ranking schemes altogether. However, student recruits, their parents, faculty recruits and funding agencies pay attention to these rankings so that to ignore them, I believe, is folly. Therefore, I believe that we should consider all of these ranking systems and to glean from them the most important guideposts and most sensible benchmarks for our journey toward excellence. For example, even though I fully expect that the National Research Council rankings of top graduate programs will change in the next 10 years, we should recognize that their 16 new categories/disciplines are the currently accepted areas in which we will be evaluated. Secondly, Texas A&M University has fallen in several different national rankings largely due to our very high student: teacher ratios and very large class sizes, and Biology is among the worst departments in this particular category. While it is true that the large student: teacher ratios in Biology are not our collective fault, the fact remains that we should and could devise new ways to educate our undergraduate and graduate students to provide a higher quality education. The large student load has recently been in some sense beneficial to the department, since it spurred the current flurry of hiring we lovingly call the "faculty reinvestment". However, as we will see below, it is not enough merely to hire more faculty to decrease our course section sizes. We must figure out ways to palpably improve the nature of higher education in the life sciences in general and Biology in particular. This document is a starting point for an open discussion about where Biology should be in the next two, six and ten years in order to achieve our goal by 2015. These timelines were chosen because they represent the end of my first term as Head of the Department of Biology, the end of a second term if the Department should choose to continue this administration and I choose to continue, and ten years, which I believe to be the limit of reasoned prediction in such a dynamic field as is Biology. Where are we now, where should we go, and how should we get there? As of September 1, 2005, the faculty of the Department of Biology comprises 40 tenured or tenure-track faculty members, 3 Senior Lecturers, 5 Lecturers, and 4 Laboratory Instructors. In addition, in January, we will welcome one more faculty member, Dr. Hongmin Qin and, in June 2006, Dr. Gil Rosenthal will join us. Currently, there are 1400 undergraduate majors and 100 graduate students in our department. According to PhDs.org, we are ranked 85 out of 179 graduate programs in "Cell and Developmental Biology" and 53rd among state universities. We are ranked 44 of the 103 recognized programs in "Molecular and General Genetics" programs, 61 of 129 in "Ecology, Evolution and Behavior", and we are not ranked at all in "Neuroscience", because we have failed to put together a degree-granting program. There are of course other ranking systems, and, because of the nature of life sciences at Texas A&M, our ranking is intermingled with those of other departments, especially the Departments of Biochemistry and Biophysics, Chemistry, Wildlife and Fisheries Science and several departments in veterinary medicine. However, it can be safely stated that in all measures of program quality, we reside somewhere in the middle of our competition in graduate education. Measures of undergraduate education are equally daunting, but, again, whether you look at US News and World Report or the Gourman Report, we are ranked somewhere in the middle. According to US News and World Report in August 2005, Texas A&M ranks 60 of the top 120 national universities and 21 among public institutions. This, of course, is an improvement over last year's ranking, probably due to the perception of improvement afforded by the highly visible reinvestment plan. In any case, one can see we have a long way to go as a university. As a department, however, it is clearly possible to achieve a national reputation for excellence. In my view, our collective goal should be to increase both our actual quality as well as our perceived quality through the eyes of external auditors of educational quality. Obviously, at least part of the latter is to achieve the former, but some things we can do can increase our reputation merely through better reporting and self-promotion. How can we do that? First, we need to reduce the student: teacher ratio. This will be impossible in our large service areas, but, with the influx of new faculty, we can reasonably set a standard that no Biology major need enroll in a course with greater than 50 students. This benefit to Biology department majors will have the added effect of stemming losses of majors to other life sciences departments. Secondly, we must improve the quality of the courses we teach by applying the newest technologies and the most objective application of educational didactics. Thirdly, we need to develop established and new research areas into top-tier, nationally recognized programs. In essence, we need to double both the composite and per capita extramural funding within the Department of Biology, and we desperately need to increase the quantity and quality of our graduate applications. Finally, we need to engage the university and the nation in a dialogue about higher education (ie. We must be a "player".). Below, specific plans for the 2007, 2011 and 2015 horizons are delineated for several distinct categories. These are, of course, completely integrated, so that discussion of any one requires recognition of the others.
2007: In 2003, we set a goal of increasing our faculty from 29 tenured/tenure-track full-time equivalents (T/TT FTEs) to a "steady-state" of 45 T/TT FTEs by 2007. As stated above, by Fall 2006, we will have achieved 42 T/TT FTEs, such that reaching or surpassing that goal is on or even ahead of schedule, even in the event of moderate levels of attrition due to retirements and other losses. Our new faculty members have transformed the face of the department, strengthening traditional areas of expertise and creating new areas of strength. We should be very careful in the selection of areas into which we search in the next 2 years. I believe we should hire at least one senior faculty member in the area of developmental biology and/or molecular evolution. However, we should consider serendipitous hires, such as highly regarded scholars in any area of expertise and/or members of under-represented ethnic groups. 2011: In spite of the 2007 goal, 45 T/TT FTEs is still well below the size of Biology faculties in peer land-grant institutions with more than 40,000 students. The average T/TT FTE in peer institutions of this size is 72 members. Thus, it is a reasonable goal to set 60 T/TT FTEs as a goal for the Department of Biology in 2011. This goal will require new research space for Biology (see below). Further, 2011 marks the end of my second term as department head. Thus, if the department supports a second term in 2007 and if I choose to stay, 2011 will still be a year in which Biology will search for a new Department Head. After over 20 years of internal Department Heads, the political and intellectual climate will likely call for an open search. Therefore, the year 2011 will be marked by a significant senior hire in the Department of Biology, if not in 2007. Such a hire will be interviewed in a climate of significant strengths, if we play our cards correctly in the next 6 years, as will be proposed below. What we do in the next 6 years will determine the intellectual, research and educational climate into which we can recruit a significant, internationally recognized scholar. What are the areas into which we should hire? First, we must consider that there will be attrition in our ranks due to tenure decisions, retirements and losses to other institutions. Secondly, we must consider research areas that are hardest hit by losses and/or opportunities to strengthen a group with a strategic hire. Thirdly, we should look to the future of biology to take advantage of the scientific/technological horizons. The first two of these are rather difficult to predict. One area we should seriously consider augmenting is the area of Plant Science (see below), since the demographics of that group is (1) aging and (2) diminishing. As for the third consideration, I strongly believe we should take advantage of the development of the Texas Institute of Genomic Medicine, which seeks to develop its significant mouse embryonic stem cell lines that carry mutations in every gene in the mouse genome. In addition, it is clear that development of embryonic and adult stem cell technologies will dominate research activity and funding (current governmental admonishments notwithstanding). We should therefore look to hire cell biologists in the area of stem cell research. I also believe we should strengthen faculty in Evolutionary Biology and in Neuroscience. However, the specifics fields into which we should recruit should and will come from a consensus of the faculty. 2015: This one is, of course, difficult to predict. However, we do know a bit about the demographics of the department in 2015. In 2015, 7 of our current faculty will be over 70 years of age and likely retired, 10 of our current faculty, including myself, will be in their 60s, some of whom will have likely retired, and 8 of our current faculty will be in their 50s, hopefully in the prime of their academic careers. The remainder of our current faculty will be largely the fruits of recruiting during the later Thomas administration and the faculty reinvestment in 2003-2007, evolving into the leadership of the department. Therefore, I would predict that faculty recruitment beginning in 2015 would be focused on junior hires to replace the 17 senior faculty members, including myself, who will likely retire between 2006 and 2019. This scenario will only be close to the truth if we can develop and retain the excellent faculty members we have hired and those we will hire in the future.
Faculty Development and Retention As the department evolves, it will be increasingly more important to develop faculty careers and to retain our most successful scientists. Since a large proportion of our faculty is now rather junior, which is a fortunate problem, we will face seasons of multiple tenure and promotion decisions. We must develop a mechanism to mentor faculty that is not arduous and does not appear to be another level of assessment. Five avenues of faculty development are worthy of continuing and implementing: First, we should continue our current informal mentor program in which tenured, senior faculty provide advice to junior tenure-track faculty members. This system appears to be working. However, as the numbers of junior faculty increase, the pressures to identify appropriate mentors will become increasingly difficult. Secondly, the evolution of our Annual Review Committee into an elected body that provides untenured faculty annual and official feedback on progress toward promotion and tenure is a valuable resource for junior faculty, since it provides an independent snapshot of senior faculty assessment of their prospects. Thirdly, I have implemented regular meetings of the untenured Assistant Professors to answer questions that may be common among them. It also gives the Assistant Professors an opportunity to directly address their concerns with the departmental administration. Fourth, very few Department of Biology faculty members take advantage of the Faculty Development Leave program. In the recent past, the small faculty size would preclude large numbers of faculty leaving. However, we should now encourage faculty to take advantage. It will allow researchers to "retool" and to gain perspective on their work and will allow educators to develop new courses and educational strategies. Fifth, the departmental administration must be more proactive in nomination of junior, mid-career and senior faculty for local and, more importantly, external awards and fellowships. These include local AFS awards, Searle Scholarships, Sloan Fellowships, McKnight Awards and others. Obviously, we (me) cannot be aware of all of these fellowship opportunities, so faculty should look into possibilities for themselves as well as for their colleagues. Faculty retention is a more complex issue that requires consideration of each individual situation. I doubt a departmental policy is an appropriate strategy for retention.
Space2007: Concerns for quality research space are and will continue to be the rate-limiting step for the growth of the Department of Biology. The renovation plan posed in 2003 that proposed to better utilize Butler Hall and that consolidated shared instrumentation and services continues to be implemented. When the plan is completed, there will be at least 45 research quality labs within BSBE, BSBW and Butler Hall. This has taken much longer than was anticipated. 2011: In order to achieve 60 T/TT FTEs in Biology, at least 15 new research laboratories must be identified. In addition, we should anticipate the need to expand (or contract) space for current faculty members as their programs evolve. There are still several spaces that can be renovated for new faculty. First, there is BSBW 023, which was formerly the Biology Imaging Laboratory and is currently temporary research space for new faculty. Secondly, there are several very large laboratory spaces that can be split into two research labs. This latter alternative is valid, but it may not be necessary at this stage. There are several other opportunities. First, the Life Sciences Building is scheduled to be open in 2008. This building has two benefits for Biology. The Microscopy and Imaging Center is slated to move into the Life Sciences Building as a central technical core. This will free approximately 6000 sq ft of prime research space on the first floor of BSBW, which could house 4-6 new research labs. In addition, we must consider utilizing research space in the Life Sciences Building itself, irrespective of past pronouncements that Biology faculty would not participate. We cannot afford to turn our backs on the opportunity to recruit into that space, as long as the department has administrative control over the space, nor can we afford to turn our backs on the life sciences community by demurring to engage in interdepartmental efforts. The second opportunity will likely avail itself before 2011. George Mitchell has decided to partially fund a new Physics/Astronomy complex on University Drive. The Physics Department has indicated that it will no longer need the second floor of Heldenfels Hall to conduct teaching laboratories in that building. There are two possible uses of the space. We could renovate the space for new research laboratories. This would likely provide space for 8-9 research labs. Alternatively, we could move all Microbiology, Physiology, Ecology and Botany laboratories into the Heldenfels space. This would free the second floor and basement of Butler Hall for renovation into research labs. Each of these plans has positive and negative consequences, and we must carefully plan a prudent course of action (in the most bold of fashion). 2015: By 2015, the Department of Biology will have evolved into a top tier Biology department if we are diligent in our plans (and our actions). To fulfill this destiny, we must work very hard to find the resources to build a new Biology building. Laboratory space on the second and third floors of BSBE will be 25 years old by then, and BSBW is slated for ultimate demolition in the University master plan. The best possibility is to build a research building on the space now occupied by Old State Chemistry, which is nearing its architectural death, if not already there.
ResearchIn 2004, principal investigators in the Department of Biology received $6.1 million in direct costs for research administered by federal agencies, the state of Texas, several private foundations and industrial partners, according to the College of Science. For most of that year, there were 31 T/TT FTEs in the department (adding 6 faculty in September, 2004). Thus, research funding per capita in 2004 was $196,774 direct costs/year. This per capita value has been relatively consistent for the past 3 years. In comparison, the 46 T/TT FTEs in the Department of Chemistry received $14.4 million ($313,043 per capita ), the 45 Department of Physics faculty members reported $9.5 million ($211,111 per capita ), and the 31 T/TT FTEs in the Department of Biochemistry and Biophysics received $12.7 million ($409,677 per capita ). I believe it is a reasonable goal to match the higher per capita value reported by Biochemistry even in the face of our significantly higher teaching load. The rapid influx of new faculty is likely to reduce our per capita income in the short term but should increase the total funding significantly. Indeed, several of our new faculty members have already garnered significant funding from a variety of sources. Even so, it will be important to increase both the total research funding and the per capita funding in order to increase both our local and national reputation. How then can we develop a strategy for increasing both of these research indicators? 2007: If past performances predict future activity, the 45 T/TT FTEs in the Department of Biology should bring in approximately $9 million direct costs at a $200,000 per capita funding rate. Since we are the most rapidly expanding experimental science/life science department on campus, that achievement will be noticed at the College and University level. However, we really should strive to increase the per capita value. To do this, we must increase the numbers and size of research grants. Several current faculty members have not submitted research proposals in several years and/or have focused on small, short term funding agencies that barely cover the costs of graduate student participation. These faculty members must be encouraged to continue to submit proposals and to submit them to agencies with deeper pockets. One way to increase the likelihood of success for these colleagues is to more aggressively encourage individuals to give proposals to their colleagues to read and to edit. I have been helped tremendously by submitting my proposals to the sometimes-humiliating review of my colleagues. In the end, subsequent funding has ameliorated my embarrassment; it simply is very difficult sometimes to maintain one's perspective on one's research program. Friendly, external editing can provide such perspective. Even so, it is important to realize that some fields receive relatively less financial support and, frankly, increased durations without funding makes it more difficult to be successful in this arena. In these cases, we must recognize that faculty members can contribute to the success of the department as a whole in many different ways and that these efforts should be rewarded with honor and remunerated equitably. Therefore, we will apply the Equitable Teaching Load policy described below. This will have two major benefits: 1) it will relieve research active faculty members from large teaching loads and 2) it will restore honor to faculty who contribute primarily through teaching. 2011: Perhaps, the single greatest need for research groups in the Department of Biology and in the university as a whole is multi-investigator research and training grants. Such funding will certainly bring "value-added" research potential and will increase local and national perception of our programs. The success of the Biological Clocks group has provided both the investigators (of which I am one) and the department as a collective a better reputation and important research infrastructure (eg. microscopes, imaging and genomics instrumentation). Typically, these programs are thought best if they derive from "grass-roots" efforts. However, they have only rarely sprung up in the past, even though there are growing and traditional strengths that beg for concerted efforts. These areas will be enunciated again in Graduate Recruitment below, but they should be stated here as both large disciplinary research groups and smaller, interdisciplinary programs. I propose that we identify research groups that should/could develop multi-investigator research/training programs, identify weaknesses that may be corrected by faculty recruitment, and assist in the development of said programs within the department and in collaboration with researchers across campus. Disciplinary Research Groups: The National Research Council has divided Life Sciences into 16 "disciplines" on which they rank research programs. If we are to increase our collective reputations, it would be wise to consider this "taxonomy" of research areas. They are:
Of these, only 10 are represented significantly within the Department of Biology, in which 3 or more faculty members have published a paper or received grant funding in this discipline in the past 5 years. These are listed below with the T/TT FTEss (joint appointees are not listed) who can be placed under each category (Note that faculty members may be listed in multiple disciplines for the same paper or grant-this exercise is to be as inclusive as is objectively possible):
Each of these disciplines within the department is matched by significant research programs in other life sciences departments. Therefore, to take research funding and perception to the next level, a reasonable goal for 2011 is the submission and/or funding of at least three multi-investigator grants. All that is required is the leadership by a subset of the individuals in each group to step forward and lead. If the group feels that the addition of a new member in a particular area or at a particular academic level (e.g. a senior hire), then we, as a group, should discuss this as a future need in the faculty reinvestment and/or new hires. In other words, we have the people; we need to put together the groups at a level that exceeds joint journal clubs and seminar classes. Interdisciplinary Programs: In addition to disciplinary research areas, Department of Biology researchers should also develop smaller, interdisciplinary research/training programs. We currently have a few, but we should recognize that these grass roots research groups could be very dynamic foci for integrative research. The Biological Clocks group is just one of these groups; there are several others that are beginning to coalesce and still others that I would recommend would be excellent areas to further develop:
There are certainly others that should be exploited. Success will require grass roots leadership. 2015: This is difficult, if not impossible, to predict. It will require the ardent activity of current faculty and students.
The State of Texas, in its eminent wisdom, has determined that faculty in state institutions of higher education must demonstrate 9 contact hours/week. This means that faculty must teach three 3-credit hour courses each semester in order to fulfill their full-time contract. For a small liberal arts or technical college, in which no other intellectual expectations are applied, this is a reasonable teaching load. However, if expectations for graduate education and/or research funding are also expected, the Texas A&M System has indicated that educational credit could be conferred through (1) supervision of graduate students, (2) participation on graduate advisory committees, (3) research activity, and (4) a variety of other academic pursuits. In his frankly Herculean efforts to elevate the Department of Biology into a research-oriented department, Dr. Timothy Hall changed the landscape of Biology teaching loads by giving both extant and future faculty members a teaching load commensurate with a research career. This enabled him to recruit research active faculty that now dominate the department. Some faculty members, most notably Dr. Billy Foster, recognized it was unlikely that he would garner significant research support and that his first love was teaching undergraduate microbiology. He remains one of the most respected faculty members among mid-career faculty who knew him. One should/must recognize that each of our academic careers evolves in different directions and that research-active careers become teaching/mentor careers, or advising careers or outreach careers, and that the department must learn to recognize the contributions of each of these paths. Still, it is not enough to teach a course/semester and claim "research". One must account for one's time; "Timing (or time) is everything". That said, the Department of Biology will no longer offer "research" time for faculty workload reports to faculty that cannot demonstrate (1) supervision of graduate students, (2) participation on graduate advisory committees, and (3) demonstrable research activity in the form of a) research funding or b) significant research publication. The only caveat to this is that junior faculty, who are developing research careers and laboratories are exempt until promotion and tenure. Thereafter, the rule should apply. Thus, for example, if there are no graduate students, no graduate committees, no publications, no submitted grant proposals and no research funding, faculty members should be expected to teach three courses/semester if the courses comprise 10-100 students or two courses with greater than 100 students/section (e.g. freshman biology). Several faculty members have indicated a desire to teach in only one semester. I have no problem with this concept, provided the minimal 9 contact hours can be objectively applied during the semester in which no formal classroom teaching is evident. Further, as we will see below, teaching/research credit may be applied in several different models, including administration of qualifying examinations and development and/or administration of distance education efforts.
In order to remain competitive, we must actively recruit the best graduate students. There are really only two pools of applicants: those that are interested in a particular research program in our department and those that merely investigate graduate programs in "Biology". Current graduate school applicants are more sophisticated in their searches in terms of website searches and application. Further, high quality graduate applicants have high expectations of graduate programs, including competitive stipends and tuition remission and/or waivers. 2007: We should continue our current strategies for recruiting graduate students. However, we should also increase our presence on the Internet, in mailings and on posters that highlight our research programs in the aforementioned disciplinary and interdisciplinary research areas:
In addition, we should set as a goal to receive funding for a graduate training grant in one of the aforementioned areas, and to develop a second training grant theme. Currently, our best shot at a training grant is an NSF IGERT in Microbiology, which has been submitted by Susan Golden in collaboration with the Bush School and many microbiologists across campus. I believe the Developmental Biology and Biological Clocks groups could propose similar programs at the NSF and NIH. 2011: By 2011, we must set as a goal to have at least three graduate training programs in place as well as post-doctoral training grants. Only then will we be able to compete with our "peers" with full footing. 2015: Who knows?
We currently have a fine cadre of graduate students in our department. However, there is no esprit de corps among them, such that despite departmental efforts to foster a sense of community among our graduate students, there is little participation among them in the Biology Graduate Student Association or other departmental events. Further, we have a growing number of graduate students that take much longer than the average 5.5 years to completion, and we have a few (a very few, mind you) students who should never have been in graduate school in the first place. I believe these are inter-related circumstances. We must create an environment that forces students to focus on their careers earlier rather than later in their graduate programs, that we should make efforts to identify students that need remediation or counseling toward another career earlier rather than later and that, by doing the two processes described above, to develop a Texas A&M Biology identity we so surely lack. First Year: To identify weaknesses in our students' body of biological knowledge, we should develop an entrance examination with questions that could be garnered from a variety of sources and that could be graded objectively and easily. The questions would span basic knowledge in the most fundamental aspects of biology ranging from molecular biology to community ecology and phylogeny. With this information, our advising office and doctoral degree advisors could better determine courses that should be assigned to the student. It would also red flag students whose gaps in biological thought are the most glaring. In addition, I believe we should revisit the Biology Research Proposal program (BRP). This original proposal failed primarily because we did not have the numbers of faculty to administer the program and because there was an alternative proposal that merely sought to determine "competence". We now have the faculty to administer this program, and the addition of the entrance exam addresses the second concern. Further, I believe faculty members that supervise the BRP should receive teaching credit for the effort. Second Year: During the second year of graduate school, students should become assimilated into laboratories and should be well on their way to developing their own research proposals. Graduate students in their second year should be very active in attending both departmental and specialty seminars. They should attend all of the Grad Student Research talks as well as Dissertation and Thesis defenses. They should participate in the Graduate Student research talks for the first time as a speaker. We should redouble our efforts to have second year graduate students take their preliminary examinations by the end of their second year or the middle of their third year. Third Year: Third year graduate students should have completed their preliminary examinations and have an approved research proposal by the end of this year. They should continue active participation in departmental events, and faculty must insist that their students participate. Fourth Year: The fourth year should be the goal for completion of all graduate study, for writing a dissertation and for its defense. Fourth year graduate students should be the leaders of the departmental life, actively participating in the Graduate Student research talks, speaking in the series for a second time, as well as Departmental and Specialty colloquia.
Recently, President Gates commissioned a Task Force for Enhancing the Undergraduate Experience at Texas A&M University. The Task Force comprised more than 100 students, staff, faculty and administrators on campus. The Final Report of the Task Force's deliberation was published in August 2005. Many of the recommendations described therein are worth considering and incorporating into our program. Fall 2006: The task force recommended that all freshmen have the opportunity to enroll in a small section course in their discipline. This is perhaps the most difficult for our department to accomplish, since we have more than 400 incoming freshman biology majors each year. In addition, the task force recommended that "learning communities" be developed for our majors. This recommendation is worth considering in our department, since other experimental science departments have been successful with them already. In addition, the task force recommended that disciplinary and core curriculum courses be formatted in "inquiry/research-guided" approaches during the first two years. I believe that by decreasing our majors' BIOL 111/112 section size to 50/section and by increasing the numbers of sections offered in BIOL 213 and 214 (decreasing section size), we can accomplish this goal. The downside of this is that to do this, we must increase the size of non-Biology major sections of BIOL 111/112 and BIOL 113. This will have negative public relations impact with other life sciences departments, but it will have a positive impact on the desirability of a Biology department major. Fall 2007: The task force recommended the expansion of honors opportunities. We should strive to develop an "honors track" for Biology department majors. This will require an honors section of BIOL 111, BIOL 112, BIOL 213, BIOL 214 and several upper division courses. I recommend honors sections of MICR 351, BIOL 357, ZOOL 388 and BIOL 466 to be offered in alternating years (1 each semester). The task force also recommended the expansion of opportunities to take courses through distance-learning and technology-mediated instruction. This would include flexible full-time academic appointments for faculty teaching during the summer semesters. We currently have beta versions of technology-mediated courses for BIOL 111/112 and ZOOL 319/320. I recommend we expand these and others. These will be discussed below.
Outreach and Distance Education This is an area in which I am not very knowledgeable. However, it is very clear that even with the increase in faculty members, it will be very difficult to cover all of our courses at a level we hope for our students. Therefore, we must endeavor to take advantage of new technological innovations in educational software. First, we should increase the amount of technology-mediated material within our core courses, especially in our larger multi-section courses such as BIOL 111/112, BIOL 113, BIOL 213/214, MICR 351, and ZOOL 319/320. Secondly, we should seriously consider the development of a non-thesis Master's program in Biology for secondary education teachers. Several Universities across the United States and overseas offer such programs, including Johns Hopkins University, University of Maryland, University of Nebraska and Lehigh University. Further, State of Texas teachers currently take these courses from other states as well as non-thesis masters programs at other A&M System campuses. Thus, if we have the resources, we should seriously consider developing such programs. This could significantly impact our statewide reputation and could provide needed external income.
Our service programs include a wide array of important offices we must (1) not neglect and (2) recognize must evolve with the ever-changing array of educational and research programs. These include:
All of these with the exception of the last entry are under departmental budgetary auspices and management. Most of these services, indeed all, except Gene Technologies, lose money. We must develop strategies to make those services that can break even, do so, those that cannot, but that we decide are essential, subsidize, and those that are no longer necessary, remove. |
