Dr. John Choma, Jr.
(Electrical Engineering-Electrophysics)
Dr. Shahram Ghandeharizadeh
(Computer Science)
Dr. Timothy M. Pinkston
(Electrical Engineering-Systems)
Contact Information:
213-740-4692 [USC Office]
213-740-8677 [USC Fax]
818-384-1552 [Cell]
johnc@almaak.usc.edu
03 February 2003
1.0. BACKGROUND
This subcommittee report is respectfully submitted to the School of Engineering (SOE) Engineering Faculty Council (EFC) pursuant to Item #6.0 in the Minutes of the 04 December 2002 meeting of the EFC. In the subject Item #6.0, Prof. James Moore, the EFC Chair, agreed to form a subcommittee charged with the tasks of reviewing and assessing a tentative list of recommendations, provided by Dean Yannis Yortsos, pertinent to faculty workloads within the SOE. The subcommittee, comprised of the individuals named on the title page of this report and chaired by Prof. Choma, was formally charged by Prof. Moore in early January 2003. The subcommittee met on 14 January and 23 January to study and carefully ponder the “Yortsos Recommendations.”
2.0. RECOMMENDATIONS AND SUBCOMMITTEE INPUTS
Eleven (11) recommendations appear in the Yortsos memorandum on SOE faculty workloads. These are delineated below in bold italicized print. Following each recommendation, the relevant commentary of the subcommittee is provided.
2.1. A policy is needed to address the issue of many options with small class enrollments, late-time cancellations, and a system of advance warning for such classes.
The subcommittee fundamentally concurs with this stipulation. However, it also feels that any developed policy should embrace innovative embryonic courses that may not initially gain a substantive student audience. Decisions made in regard to offering proposed new classes should address anticipated future class enrollments and the projected impact the new class has on the fundamental teaching and research missions of the department. The subcommittee believes that the guidelines implicit to any developed policy should also apply to non-tenure track research faculty. Finally, the subcommittee presumes tacitly that the adjective, “small,” in “small class enrollments,” means “less than minimum enrollment requirements,” in the SOE.
2.2. The faculty load profiles assigned by chairs should be reviewed systematically and annually, and approved by the Dean, preferably before the new budget cycle and right after the faculty merit review evaluation.
The subcommittee agrees with this recommendation.
2.3. A policy is needed to clarify what constitutes teaching load, particularly with respect to class size, TA/LA/Grader support, laboratory component, graduate seminars, etc.
Faculty teaching loads must address actual class enrollments and other factors, such as teaching assistant support provided. For example, a class populated by 100 students is certainly more demanding of faculty time than is a class taken by only 15 students, particularly if the number of teaching assistants assigned to these classes is the same. The subcommittee believes that decisions regarding fair and equitable faculty teaching loads should rest with the chairs, who must operate within explicit fiduciary constraints imposed by departmental budgets.
2.4. A policy is needed to clarify what is adequate research performance and how to assign a different profile to faculty whose research performance is not adequate.
The subcommittee agrees that a different profile is needed for faculty who, despite a sub-standard research performance, are nonetheless justifiably perceived as vital contributors to the departmental mission. The developed policy should indeed clarify that which constitutes “adequate research performance.” Moreover, the policy should address both the specific conditions that warrant the application of a different profile and the procedures that underlie the determination of the different profile.
2.5. The profile of full-time lecturers must become consistent with that of TT faculty.
The subcommittee agrees with this contention.
2.6. Policies are needed to define teaching loads for faculty with administrative appointments. We note that the ChE chair should be rewarded somehow, for having not taken any course relief the last two years (at least).
In contrast to this stipulation, the subcommittee believes that guidelines are needed to define a reasonable and fair distribution of teaching and administrative responsibilities. While the Chemical Engineering, or any other, chair should be applauded for maintaining full teaching loads while administering a department, any rewards contemplated for such laudable service is a matter to be addressed privately between the Dean and the chair, as opposed to being incorporated into a teaching and administrative load policy.
2.7. A policy is needed to define what percentage of time charged to research contracts constitutes “buy-out.”
The subcommittee agrees with this contention. But it also recommends that any developed policy address the issues of how many courses can be “bought-out” and the manner in which these “buy-outs” can be equitably factored into the faculty load profile.
2.8. A policy is need to change current practice in which faculty use sabbatical leaves to effectively “buy-out” one course.
This suggested policy can be absorbed into any policy developed in conjunction with Policy Paragraph #2.7. But “buy-outs” aside, the subcommittee believes that a policy is required to establish course-teaching obligations during the sabbatical leave year. In a related matter, a policy is also needed to determine the extent to which faculty can be supported by grants, contracts, and the like during the sabbatical year. The subcommittee perceives no need to change extant policies and guidelines in regard to sabbatical leaves that encompass a semester in which the faculty member is scheduled to teach two classes.
2.9. The issue of some faculty never teaching UG courses must be addressed.
The subcommittee believes strongly that incentives should be provided to motivate senior faculty toward teaching undergraduate courses periodically. More than granting incentives, appropriate consequences should be delineated for faculty who refuse undergraduate teaching. The subcommittee debated the issue of undergraduate teaching closely and converged to the recommendation of a policy that requires tenure track faculty to teach a required minimum number of undergraduate course units over an appropriate number of semesters. The subcommittee believes that it should be impossible for SOE students to complete their undergraduate program without having a number of classes taught by tenure track faculty, and especially by senior tenure track faculty.
2.10. Possible course duplication must be reviewed.
The subcommittee concurs with this contention.
2.11. Mechanisms are needed to monitor teaching loads of faculty with joint appointments.
The subcommittee concurs with this contention.
3.0. CONCLUDING COMMENTS
The subcommittee applauds Dean Yortsos for raising the eleven issues addressed in the preceding section of this report. Most of these issues are clearly complex and therefore warrant careful consideration, assessment, and evaluation prior to the establishment of respective SOE policies and guidelines. To this end, the subcommittee presumes that a committee will be established to forge appropriate policies to which the faculty can comfortably subscribe and that the Dean can approve and implement. If such a committee is indeed convened, the members of this EFC subcommittee respectfully offer their services.