Minutes

Academic Planning Task Force Meeting

February 1, 2007

1. The meeting was called to order at 12:03 p.m. Two items were on the agenda: a discussion of the questions that were generated concerning the “20,000-foot level” describing what SPSU will look like in 2011 and a discussion of attributes that will come to describe SPSU.

2. Item 1. Szafran asked the group to look over the questions and to indicate what questions were of importance and/or what questions are missing. What follows is a list of concerns and questions that the questions raised:

Size and Growth Concerns

1. Size and growth are key—potential to change and define the university
2. Should there be a cap to size to maintain quality and vigor?
3. Do we need an upper limit? Why not let things unfold?
4. Yes, the need exits so we can plan how we will get there.
5. Yes, it forces practicality.
6. Yes, so we can ensure faculty are hired and facilities are built.
7. Why not call for growth “targets” rather than limits?
8. Need limits to ensure quality of education, to ensure pride in graduates, and to ensure resources.
9. Have we set limits in the past? Can we recruit the number that we want?
10. How will size impact our relationship to students? Currently students are individuals and instruction can be personalized. What are the benefits and trade offs to growth?
11. Colleges are fundamentally different places depending upon size. Pedagogy changes when lecture size classes are filled. Are we going to fill every seat in large lecture halls?

Our Current Status—Chair Szafran said he was surprised how many questions dealt with our current status and wondered if this showed insecurity about who we are. Discussion ensued.

a. We must know who we are to understand who we will be.

b. We need to know what will happen with engineering. (Discussion of Engineering Task Force)

c. We need to know who we are since change is an organic process. What possibilities have not been actualized? How will we consider our “applied” label in the future? To what extent can it become a limit rather than a positive thing? What roles may the theoretical have?

d. What does comprehensive mean to applied learning?

e. We’re focused too much on evolutionary. Evolutionary creates a destiny of comfortable, slow change vs. revolutionary. We should consider what is desirable and how do we get there.

3. Item #2. Chair Szafran asked the group what attributes will come to define SPSU. He discussed the two current stock responses: Applied Technology and Georgia’s Technology University. He asked: “What do these attributes mean ten years from now for technology will change?” Discussion ensued.

Attribute “quality education”

1. We are currently known for quality education, but quality means different things to different people. Quality is in part about meeting requirements. For example, if a buyer is looking for a 2-door car, a 4-door car is not necessarily better. We shouldn’t assume more is better.
2. Quality may mean not writing off certain students. Georgia Tech will fund education to “needy” students. 50% of students lose Hope at Georgia Tech. Students with 2.0 will continue to have costs covered.
3. Quality is not going upscale on requirements. The finish line should determine quality not the starting line.
4. How do we define quality? Is it retaining students? Then shoring up admissions may help. Is it bringing in more students? Then another scheme is needed. What are the standards?
5. We should actually enforce the requirements we have now such as not transferring in students with GPAs below 1.7 GPA.
6. We should have the “heart” to take in students who are “growing.”
7. TOEFL guidelines not met.
8. Each student should be measured as an individual
9. We shouldn’t equate “successful” student at SPSU with “successful” student at another university such as Georgia Tech. We may teach in fundamentally different ways. Students may be successful in a “different” mode because of learning styles.
10. It would be a fundamental mistake to assume becoming like Georgia Tech = quality.
11. We need to create our own identity as a “quality” institution. We should be keeping students because they come to SPSU for what it has to offer.
12. Yes, we should get our teaching/learning philosophies on paper. Answers will come from these ideas.
13. Carve out our own niche. We’re not Georgia Tech, but we’re also not Kennesaw.
14. Clear identity will lead to growth.
15. Stringent requirements make programs more attractive.
16. Create a mind set that it is up to “us” (students and SPSU) not up to “them” (students alone) to create success.

Other Attributes

a. We’ll be known for a fully functional graduate and professional school in our sector.

b. We should actually be Georgia’s Technology school.

c. Should our research model be closer to Georgia Tech’s?

d. Research should be known for its applied nature. Georgia Tech’s research is often driven by an applied nature.

e. We should be known for a strong relationship with industry. We had a strong relationship with industry before the Georgia Tech split and have never fully regained it. We can build industry relationships by have graduate students provide services to industry as part of their projects.

f. We should be known for research integrated into programs with support for faculty.

g. A higher profile. Every child in Georgia between the ages of 14 (maybe even younger) will recognize Southern Polytechnic State University.

Homework Assignment

• Answer the question “what attributes will define your department or program in 2016. How might these attributes affect location and/or facilities?”
• In about five-sentences paint a vivid picture of the single aspect of SPSU in 2016 that is most important (in your opinion) to reaching SPSU’s future. For an example see Joel Fowler’s description of research:

Dateline 2012:
While other universities see themselves as primarily either teaching focused or research focused, Southern Polytechnic State University continues to mature in its role as Georgia's premier university dedicated to doing and linking both.  The faculty's research areas, teaching and scholarly activity benefiting students, show that they take the traditional term "teaching scholars" very seriously.  There is little disconnect between the research they do and their classroom teaching.  Their two primary research areas reflect this.  Study within their fields, focused on creating knowledge that is classroom usable, is supplemented by the study of teaching and effective communication.  Since SPSU began its drive to be the institution of choice for an integrated experience of knowledge and education, students come to SPSU expecting to be challenged and with high expectations of their professor's teaching.  They are not disappointed.  At all levels of the curriculum students are expected to think and work with faculty as scholars themselves, while faculty are expected to guide students with deep knowledge of both their disciplines and teaching.  Sophomore student Zaphod Beeblebrox put it best: "My [SPSU] professors really know their stuff, but they can really get it across.  They're always bringing interesting things into the classroom they just learned that really help me appreciate what we're studying.  I've never been so challenged, but I've also never felt so much support for my learning.  The faculty really care.  I'm working right now in a group of students with Professor Zaius on a time travel project.  I'm not sure who's learning more doing it, him or us."