Provost's document and what it doesn't say

The provost's academic plan lists as first goals our being known as the premier public university in the Northeast, and in a league with the likes of Virginia-within a decade. These goals are vague and hard to gauge.

A more concrete goal would be to increase yield-that is, the proportion of students accepted at Buffalo who actually come here. A second goal might zero in on retention rates. It is much easier to measure success against internal data than external perceptions. It also will spotlight failure more clearly.

Buffalo is first in the SUNY system only in size and comprehensiveness. Our undergraduate education comes off poorly; students admitted to both Binghamton and Buffalo flock to Binghamton at twice the rate, and students also accepted at Geneseo or Fredonia likewise tend to bypass Buffalo.

To raise our yield, currently stuck somewhere below 25 percent, to 30 percent, would be a worthwhile objective. The provost's plan pleads again for permission to charge (and keep) a differential tuition of $600, but on the evidence such a course is contra-indicated.

Our graduate programs suffer in comparison with Stony Brook, barely hold their own against Binghamton, and are dismal when broader bases of comparison are used. To its credit, the provost's report is quiet up front on all that.

The provost argues that undergraduate education will be served by combining "the three deans." Their current meeting point, the vice provost for undergraduate education, has no budgetary clout. The fiscal incentives facing the three deans work against their emphasizing undergraduate education.

The provost is correct that a "superdean" with purse strings would help address the problem of decanal neglect for undergraduate programs. But so would a financial incentive system which would give the deans the right signals. The structural problem will remain to haunt the "superdean" quite as badly as the provost is haunted by it today.

To tackle graduate education shortcomings, the provost looks for structures of collaboration of faculty across departments in centers or institutes. This would show our capacity to innovate and lead our peers.

Past experiences with such ventures, first the so-called colleges, then graduate groups, later yet the undergraduate college, were unsuccessful. The accounting acumen is unequal to the task, and personnel decisions on candidates with split allegiances are unavoidably contentious.

A functional Faculty Club (the old Tiffin Room would have been the perfect location) will be more effective than formal structures.

Nonetheless, maybe we are smarter and can succeed where others failed. Try it. But try it retail. Try it out on the new chemistry-biology-medicine combine which received about $4 million in development funds. (A similar amount for similar purposes was obtained by Stony Brook from Central Administration.)

The provost's document is also interesting for what it does not say.

- It does NOT say whether the better departments will be rewarded by extra resources, or the lagging departments will be funded extra to bring them up to speed. Past actions and indicated intentions show a wholly erratic, random pattern on this score.

- It does NOT mention market demand. The report devotes a good deal of attention to ethnic- and gender-study programs, but dismisses the statistics department in a forlorn one-liner-get rid of it. Casual perusal of openings paints a different picture of societal needs. So does the demand of serious students for serious courses.

- It does NOT say much about our being part of a system. Our whole history has been one of fighting Central Administration, and not deigning to even talk to the leaders of other University Centers and Colleges. Our motto is "sit apart" and strive for "campus-based tuition flexibility." Yet collaboration could pay huge dividends: a more economical division of labor, a smooth stream of transfer students, greater support in the legislature.

- It does NOT mention our athletic programs, which have become the huge sink its detractors feared, rather than the bountiful source its promoters painted. It diverts real money from academic programs, and imposes a $200/year burden on students.

- It does NOT say that many of our problems come about because we simply don't all do our jobs as well as we should. Where is our seriousness of purpose when the provost leaves for a golfing week during the few weeks academe actually operates at full speed? Where is our credibility when a full-time dean accepts a second full-time position? When a professor takes off for 10 days in the sun while a sub "covers"?

None of this is addressed by reorganization, one way or the other, with or without institutes. And none of this has anything to do with whatever transpires in Virginia.

John C. G. Boot
Professor and Chair

Dept. of Management Science and Systems

Hats off to planners of 'Take Daughters to Work'

Editor:

Take Our Daughters to Work" (April 24,1997) proved to be a highly delightful event for my granddaughter and myself. My granddaughter was up at 5:45 a.m. anxious to begin our day. On the way to work, she informed me that she could have gone on a school hike, but was really looking forward to visiting SUNY at Buffalo. Arriving at the Student Union around 8:30 a.m., we were greeted by committee members who proceeded to give out "goodie bags" to the children. A light breakfast was furnished and afterwards, parents, guardians, children and grandchildren were ushered into the Student Union Theatre to hear a presentation, which was extremely interesting. The speakers were very informative and really enforced the idea that you can make anything of yourself if you really try hard enough and don't give up even though obstacles may get in your way. "Follow your dream." I was very impressed. The morning (silk screening) and afternoon (visiting the dorms) proved to be very educational and informative. Our guide for the dorms truly had the children's interest and they asked many questions. The lake looked very inviting around Ellicott Complex, so we decided to sit and enjoy the scenery for a few minutes. Besides the friendliness we enjoyed everywhere we went, she found two new friends, the ducks. Her new-found friends stayed with us until we left for the Commons (you guessed it-Burger King). We also visited the bookstore for a few souvenirs. The program ended at 2:30 p.m. Our day was not quite over for I took her back to my office in Baldy Hall. Looking out the window facing Bell Hall, my granddaughter was impressed with the lovely view from my window. She enjoyed watching the students going from one building to another. All in all, she loved the university life. I was informed on the way home that she can't wait until next year's event.

The emphasis I would like to convey is the professionalism and organizational skills the committee displayed while handling this event. Hats off to every one of them. It all revolved around what a wonderful day and an enjoyable time we had to spend with our children while they were learning about our work environment. It proved to be a very educational day for both of us. Looking forward to next year.

Janice Mings
Social Sciences

Look to your left and right in Physics

I am a Professor Emeritus. Was on the engineering faculty from 1966 to 1994. The story about "look to your left, look to your right, N of you won't be there at graduation" where N=2 or 3, has been around the whole time. In one case, the person saying this was supposed to be a member of the engineering dean's office.

This story is an "urban legend."

There are a few facts. One is that engineering has an attrition rate of about 50 percent. Engineering is very defensive about this. In fact, the attrition rate for all programs at UB is also about 50 percent. In fact, engineering at UB might have lower attrition rate than the UB average, if controlled for fact that engineering students must declare their major as freshmen.

Also, I once did a statistical study on a large, random sample of incoming freshman students. Used UB math placement test as independent variable and grade in math, chemistry and physics as dependent variable. Found that, when controlled for math skills, students who got an A in chemistry and an A in math, got a B in physics. And so on, down the line. Physics grades about one letter grade below math, chemistry grades for students with same math skill. Students who got C in math and chemistry got D or F in physics.

And, incidentally, students who got D or F in physics knew no physics!!

Physics needs to do a better job of informing students of what is expected of them, and, frankly, warning students with low math skills that real physics, as taught at UB, truly depends on, at least, college algebra and a little-very little!-calculus.

Also, physics has a fearsome reputation and needs to do some honest public relations with incoming students.

According to a colleague, now a department chairman in engineering, but once a UB student, this fearsome reputation goes back at least to 1950s and early 1960s.

Regards,

Stephen G. Margolis
Professor Emeritus, Electrical and Computer Engineering
via e-mail