Meeting notes: March 14, 2014

Callie and Vicki reviewed the meeting and deliverable schedule. They will present to the Trustees on April 10. The task force deliverables will be in table format.

To summarize the first meeting, the dimension statement was reviewed and the task force decided to rewrite it. Space is available on the wiki for task force members to comment.
The next two meetings will be spent on the vision for a graduate portfolio at RIT. What does RIT value in graduate research and education? Why do people come here for graduate education?

Linda Underhill commented on a survey recently completed on the value proposition for graduate education. One of the primary responses was the opportunity to do research with faculty mentors. 

Jenn observed that we likely have two camps of graduate students: those in research-based programs and those looking for an applied experience. We need to be careful not to exclude or diminish one or the other.

John described the discussions and issues involved in planning a graduate program, including research components, planning for methods and other classes, and others. Jenn offered that she had worked with students from at least six grad programs, including Ph.D. programs, and sees quality across programs.

Puru asked if this had not been dealt with in the graduate education task force led by Hector. Callie responded that that task force had not made recommendations for specific investments. Puru asked what RIT’s grad population would be in 2020 and indicated we should consider capacity for this population, and what investments we should consider. Also, graduate capacity internationally is growing, particularly in China and India. How can RIT be a magnet for graduate students in the future?

Callie suggested that the group consider the value proposition for fundamental research. Joel offered that the interdisciplinary experience is something RIT may do relatively well. Pengcheng opined that our students are known for their ability to contribute at all levels and not just to write papers. David M. described the unique nature of the Imaging Science degree and its responsiveness to the professional community. They have the flexibility to alter curriculum based on employer need, and no Ph.D. has defended without having a job in hand. Linda said that all MS programs were similarly unique, but David M. was not certain this was the case.

What about students who aspire to academic careers? The bulk of RIT doctorates go to industry and government, and this is a strength for RIT.

What factors go into planning for a new graduate program? Enrollment is a primary consideration and the process for launching a new graduate program is rigorous.

Manuela suggested that postdocs should be considered as RIT builds the pipeline for graduate education, as they serve a key role in research culture. Pengcheng commented that postdocs are creatures of economic necessity, but can serve valuable roles at RIT.

Callie: what makes RIT graduate education unique? Should we only invest in “unique” programs? How do we account for the cost of the programs? What is the basis for investing in graduate programs?

John Ettlie discussed the barriers to progress. Release time and schedule are big factors. Three courses a semester are too much, especially if they involve course preparation.

Hector discussed RIT’s commitment to research based graduate programs, and offered that the university covers about 80% of the costs of these programs currently. Puru reflected on Trustees discussion on what defines RIT, and the fact that our limited endowment means we can’t do everything we might wish to. Does RIT have strategic disciplinary programs to invest in and build upon? RIT is no longer the printing and photography school. Sustainability, visualization and other areas are things that RIT excels in and should invest in. What is RIT and where does it go from here?

Joel observed that things move too fast to accurately predict what needs will be in a decade. Programs must be nimble. Jim described Pittsburgh’s experience developing a transplant research center and the positive impacts on multiple programs. Can we identify a central theme that would benefit a large cross section of RIT? This model would involve investment in key strategic research thrusts and spillover benefits to many additional programs, especially those providing the core competencies (depth) for the particular thrust.

The new big idea will drive positive returns. Callie asked for examples of successful implementation of big ideas. Jim presented sustainability as an example, with significant private and public funding, of something we might have pursued to more holistic benefit. Individuals and departments need to see how the next big thing will benefit them and how it will break down rather than reinforce existing silos.

Puru observed that gaming emerged from nothing into something significant. Jim commented that health sciences is a promising area for investment, and it has a broad base in existing disciplines.

Jenn commented on the consequence of silo-based metrics from administration.

David B. commented that SUNY Buffalo went through a ground up process to identify research strengths independent of departmental structures. Natural leaders emerged through this process and the university identified a set of core strengths and invested them with influence in the hiring process. 

Next Steps

A meeting time will be identified for next week. Longer-term scheduling will be done for next month.

Subsequent discussion will focus on organic growth and organization coupled with strategic efforts to empower faculty to identify and build up core research strength areas and create a research culture.