The College of Arts and Sciences presented plans to reorganize departments and potentially form new schools within the college at a town hall meeting on Oct. 1. These plans had already been set into motion at the time of being presented to faculty members.
According to the meeting presentation, the reorganizational process consists of the Arts and Sciences Renewal Committee (ARC) reviewing the current structure of the college and eventually developing recommendations for a future structure to be provided to the dean. ARC will be working with Emergent Method, an external management consulting firm, in considering organizational models and holding interviews with stakeholders.
Thursday’s meeting agenda included a presentation on where the college stands with enrollment, which dropped in headcount this year. Overall enrollment has decreased 0.1% for first-year and 6.1% for five-year enrollment. Regarding the college’s student retention, the first-time freshmen retention rate has increased by 1% to 86.3% this year, and has a 59% four-year graduation rate and 66.9% six-year graduation rate. First-time transfer retention rates have decreased across the university, with Arts and Sciences decreasing 6.2% to a 78.8% rate.
Karen Goos, vice provost of enrollment, presented on enrollment status. According to the presentation, shifts in student interest, demographics and the overall landscape of higher education affect enrollment and retention rates within the college and play a role in influencing the planned reorganizational process.
Brad Behnke, dean of the College of Health and Human Sciences, and Mindy Markham, director of the School of Human Sciences, led a panel at the meeting. The two presented details of the College of Health and Human Sciences’ transition from several dissimilar departments into a new structure of three distinct schools; the School of Human Sciences, the School of Health Sciences and the School of Consumer Sciences.
According to their presentation, the reasons HHS made this transition were due to identified concerns around culture, turnover, organizational identity, structure and limited opportunities to develop future faculty leaders. The transition’s results, as the presentation stated, include stronger leadership, clearer communication between faculty and a more connected college.
After Jesse Perez Mendez, provost and executive vice president of K-State, began the Q and A portion of the meeting, many attendees looked for clarification on the future of their departments, while others voiced their grievances toward the major shifts the college is experiencing.
Nathaniel Birkhead, head of the Department of Political Science, said that since college faculty members are only being given a matter of months to prepare for this reorganization, a clear timeline would help them plan their next steps.
Mendez acknowledged that the timeline is shortened for Arts and Sciences and said that there will be plenty of outreach and several meetings for preparation.
When Gary Brase, professor in the Department of Psychological Sciences, asked Mendez if there was a thorough review of where money is coming and going before deciding to implement this plan, Mendez said a fiscal assessment of the college is in order in the near future. Brase asked why this fiscal assessment was not done beforehand.
“We’re making changes, not hiring, letting people go, without having a clear picture of where everything is,” Brase said.
Mendez said his overall goal is to get Arts and Sciences to a more secure position.
“I think that this was a conversation that should have happened in the college years ago,” Mendez said. “I don’t know why it didn’t. … I want to place the college where it’s able to reinvest in itself. Right now, the college is thinking day-to-day fiscal. … We need to be in a better place in this college culturally, financially and socially.”
Ben McCloskey, associate professor in the Department of Modern Languages, asked Mendez and Cynthia Warrick, interim dean of the College of Arts and Sciences, what decisions have already been made besides the evaluation processes of Academic Program Review and Revitalization and ARC.
In her response, Warrick said she is not sure what exactly will be done yet.
“I will … talk with ARC about any recommendations they make and if they work with us, I will send those recommendations to the provost and he will also provide feedback and input,” Warrick said. “It’s hard for me to say what I’m going to do in the future. But I know that what you create is going to be what you want, and that’s what we’ll support.”
Mendez added that the intent of the processes is to find what can be done without impacting personnel.
Warrick shared with faculty that a new associate dean of research has been hired through a partnership with the Johnson Cancer Research Center.
“In terms of trying to look at the function of the associate dean of research, build more collaborative research opportunities and to cut expenses in the dean’s office, I am partnering with the Cancer Center to help fund the associate dean for research position,” Warrick said.
Multiple attendees communicated concerns that this partnership, in addition to the reorganization process, is ill-suited for the purposes of Arts and Sciences research.
“I think one thing that you absolutely need to be extremely careful about doing this job is to preserve our research,” Marianne Korten, professor in the Department of Mathematics, said. “I’m not saying you need to abort the whole mission … remember that we satisfy a crucial function here. … I want this to be creative, protective of R-1, protective of research, protective of the respect this university deserves and I want to see you guys fundraise a little bit for the college.”
Applause from fellow faculty members and a final response from Mendez followed Korten’s comment
“I’m committed to preserving our R-1 status,” Mendez said. “This year is not going to feel good. … But that is the goal: to continue to make sure that research doesn’t lose much momentum.”
