Meeting notes: March 6, 2014

The schedule of deliverables is on the General Task Force Charge handout.  Puru asked about situational analysis in this area; Callie referred to documentation available on the task force wiki, including the Strategic Plan for Graduate Education at RIT.  Callie called the group’s attention to the important dates and deliverables, especially the March deadlines. 

Dimension Statement.  Andy asked about the development of the dimension statement.  This was essentially brainstorming work by the steering committee and is not meant to constrain the task force. Hector suggested an initial discussion of the dimension statement itself.  The task force should determine that this is the right statement or, if not, offer a new version.  Hector offered that the statement as it is does not reflect anything unique about RIT.

Manuela found the statement both general and restrictive, and noted it fails to address excellence and does not include fundamental research.  Others referred to the absence of discovery research in the Beautiful Solutions vision statement, and observed that it seems to flow from an undergraduate centric view.  This led to a discussion about the role of fundamental research as a foundation for strategic planning including aspirations and current strengths. 

Bruce observed that the dimension statement includes the word “conduct” three times and suggested it should also address dissemination.

Puru asked what the faculty of 2025 will look like.  How will RIT attract the best faculty available?  The environmental scan does not address the faculty of the future. 

Scope of the charge. Callie reminded the task force that the scope includes all graduate education programs, including those that are not engaged in fundamental research.  Hector observed that graduate enrollment is currently 20% of total and growing, and most programs are not research-based.  The task force wanted a better understanding of the number and types of grad programs – thesis, project, other – at RIT.

Pengcheng noted that the vision statement and dimension statements do not address entrepreneurship.  Manuela asked if we should address leadership in the statement, and this is something that would help grow the endowment. 

Do we need research to have successful graduate education programs?  Do we need to focus on excellence in training of graduate students as opposed to research?

Andy observed that research and graduate education are very separable and there are separate issues for each.  These could be considered by separate groups.  Others disagreed and asserted that it is hard to tease apart certain issues from each other.

“We should prepare students for the career they want, not the career we think they should have.”   Pengcheng

Andre said that hiring practices must be revisited in order to achieve any transformative goals in research.  Manuela agreed and observed that graduate program excellence will build on the quality of faculty.  Resources, including start up packages, are an important part of this equation.

Research Culture.  What does it mean to have a research culture on campus?  This is an important predictor of success.

Vicki noted themes for the task force to consider:  branding, building a research culture, the graduate student experience.  Does RIT have the intellectual vibe of a research university?  Is this the right environment for “boundless thinking”?  Can we create a culture where it is cool to collaborate?  Real opportunity is at the intersection of multiple disciplines and the problems of the present and future call for integrative solutions.  Silos prevent RIT from getting the most out of its intellectual capacity.  The convergence needed for breakthroughs is not here yet.

Do the individual silos/sandboxes mitigate against developing a research culture?  Faculty do not feel empowered to change or improve the culture.  Give faculty the power to make research decisions.  Nick was asked about the culture at his new institution, Penn.  He did research at RIT with Satish Kandlikar.  Penn has a critical mass of 10,000 graduate students, which allows him to meet students outside his field.  Also, many Penn grad students come back after working for a few years, bringing valuable life experience.  At RIT, most grad students were essentially undergrads working on BS/MS degrees. 

The task force observed that RIT has teaching faculty who will not do research regardless of any institutional efforts.  RIT needs research faculty and, in the opinion of one task force member, faculty cannot teach and do research.  Others opposed this notion. 

Faculty searches gravitate to teaching faculty, not star researchers.  New faculty lines are awarded by enrollment increases, or by replacing the deceased or retired.  Nothing transformative will happen this way.

The task force was bemused by the final statement in the dimension statement.  It seemed out of context and unrelated.  

Next Steps

Callie returned to a discussion of the outputs for the task force.  She suggested the task force combine key ideas to consider before revising the dimension statement.

Suggested discussions for next two meetings:

What does the notion of RIT strengths mean?

What kind of culture does RIT need to advance this dimension?