[Proflist] Re: Fwd: Draft Bachelor's Degree Statement

Thu Oct 28 11:17:58 MDT 2004

I thought that the recommendation for a minimum of 3 faculty was
intended to ensure a program will have faculty with the expertise to
cover the three important areas in a typical major; synoptic, dynamic,
physical (incl instrumentation).  We at Central Michigan Univ are in the
process of changing our concentration to a major which has a core of 34
hours.  Over the course of one year each of our three faculty will teach
the following courses:

Faculty #1  (16 credit hours)

MET 330  Dynamics I
MET 335  Dynamics II
MET 320  Cloud Physics
MET 201  Weather (for non-majors)
MET 240  Meteorology (intro course for majors)

Faculty #2  (17 credit hours)

MET 250  Physical Properties of atmos
MET 490  NWP (Considered to be our capstone)
MET 310  Radiation and thermo
MET 450  Mesoscale
MET 210  Weather (for non-majors)

Faculty #3  (16 credit hours)

MET 240  Meteorology
MET 460  Synoptic I
MET 470  Synoptic II
MET 302  Remote sensing of atmos
MET 201  Weather (for non-majors)

It is clear that you can have a very robust major that exceeds the
minimum course recommendations with 3 faculty.  Obviously if teaching
loads differ from this 3-2 model the # would need to be adjusted
accordingly.

Neil Mower.

Before we start imposing minimum and recommended numbers of faculties, I
think there needs to be some rationale for the numbers rather than just
pulling a number out of a hat.  How do you arrive at 5 vs 2 or 7 or 20. 
Clearly, the required number depends on the number of courses to be
taught in the program and the number of students that are serviced by
the program.  A program with 25 students will have a completely
different recommended number of faculty memebers than a program with
150.  Also, the scope of the courses taught will influence the
recommended number.  I suspect that the absolute minimum number is easy
to determine based on a single section of X number of courses required
to complete the program divided by the standard teaching load.  I
understand where Alan is coming from, I just don't think there is a
simple answer to the recommended number of faculty.  Also, be careful
for what you ask, if the number is too large, the program could be
vulnerable to being eliminated.  

          I am not trying to be totaly negative on this issue, I just
think we need to be able to justify our position.

                               David

>>> Alan Robock <robock at envsci.rutgers.edu> 10/20/04 03:06PM >>>
Dear Mohan,

1.  As you know, I have already made the following suggestion:

I think we need to specify recommended numbers of faculty and not just

the minimum.  This would be very valuable for all departments seeking
to 
hire more faculty.  In other disciplines, national accredidation panels

specify the number of faculty needed, and AMS can do a similar service

for us.  In the second paragraph from the bottom on page 4, I recommend

the following change:

"At undergraduate colleges with full-time teaching faculty, there
should 
be a minimum of three faculty members, but the recommended level is
five 
or more.  At research universities, where faculty devote a substantial

amount of time to graduate teaching and research as well as 
undergraduate teaching, there should be a minimum of six faculty 
members, but the recommended level is ten or more to be able to cover 
all the necessary disciplinary areas.  The faculty members should have

the expertise ..."

----

2.  In addition, a resolution was passed quickly at the end of the
Heads 
and Chairs meeting in Boulder last week that recommended changes in the

statement that would require 27 credits rather than 24 credits in the 
program.  I have not yet received a copy of it, but would like to 
recommend against it on a basic philosophical ground.

An undergraduate liberal arts education is the last chance a student 
will have to take courses in literature, fine arts, humanities, and 
social "science."  Students can specialize as graduate students or go
on 
learning about meteorology in their jobs, but I would not like to 
require that they take additional courses as part of their
undergraduate 
major.  This will allow them to take other elective courses in subjects

that will broaden them as people and citizens, which I think is more 
valuable than one more meteorology or related course.

Thanks for considering my views.  I feel more strongly about the first

one than the second one.

Alan

Professor Alan Robock
   Editor, JGR - Atmospheres
   Director, Center for Environmental Prediction
Department of Environmental Sciences              Phone:
+1-732-932-9478
Rutgers University                                  Fax:
+1-732-932-8644
14 College Farm Road                   E-mail:
robock at envsci.rutgers.edu 
New Brunswick, NJ 08901-8551  USA     
http://envsci.rutgers.edu/~robock 

On Tue, 19 Oct 2004, Brenda Ward wrote:

>
>> 
>> Dear Colleague,
>> 
>> On behalf of the Board on Higher Education of the American
Meteorological 
>> Society, I seek your comments on the revised draft statement on the

>> Bachelor's Degree in Atmospheric Science.  The draft statement is
available 
>> at:
>> 
>>
http://my.unidata.ucar.edu/content/publications/Bachelors_degree_stateme
nt_2004.pdf

>> 
>> For your background, the current AMS statement on this subject is
available 
>> at:
>> 
>>
<http://www.ametsoc.org/policy/bachelor99.html>http://www.ametsoc.org/po
licy/bachelor99.html

>> 
>> Also, please share this draft statement with colleagues in your
department. 
>> Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions.  It
would 
>> be most helpful if you can send me (mohan at ucar.edu) your comments by
15 
>> November.
>> 
>> Thank you in anticipation,
>> 
>> Mohan Ramamurthy
>
_______________________________________________
ProfList mailing list
ProfList at ucar.edu
http://mailman.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/proflist