APC University Academic Plan-Spring 2022

Executive Summary

Academic Planning Committee University Academic Plan Spring 2022

The Academic Planning Committee submits this report to the St. Lawrence University community, the President, and the Board of Trustees through the Faculty Council. The recommendations for Academic Affairs summarized below and described in more detail in the body of the report are informed by the work of the Experience St. Lawrence Task Force and the necessity of reaching financial sustainability.

• Plan to save up to $600,000 annually by 2024
• Plan for a projected total student enrollment of 2275 by 2024
• Move the Student-Faculty Ratio [SFR] from 11.8:1 back in line with the 10-year historic average of 12.5:1 by 2024
• Plan to reduce the number of tenure-track lines by 5 through attrition to return the SFR to our historic 10-year average by 2024
• Develop procedures and policies to increase efficiency and equity in our work
• Develop better processes for gathering/sharing data for course planning and addressing curricular bottlenecks

Contents

Introduction.................................................................................................................................... 3

APC’s Work To-Date.................................................................................................................... 3

Issues to Address in Spring 2022.................................................................................................. 4

Student-Faculty Ratio................................................................................................................... 4

Faculty Workload and Equity...................................................................................................... 4

Class Sizes and Course Enrollments............................................................................................ 4

Course Releases........................................................................................................................... 5

Staffing and Position Requests...................................................................................................... 6

Net Reduction of Tenure-Track Faculty Lines............................................................................. 6

Visiting Faculty Lines................................................................................................................... 8

Reduction in Adjunct Hires.......................................................................................................... 8

Course scheduling........................................................................................................................ 8

Additional Changes and Cost Savings.......................................................................................... 9

Academic Affairs Administrative Restructuring........................................................................... 9

Departmental Operating Budgets................................................................................................. 9

Long-Term Planning and Innovation.......................................................................................... 9

Conclusion.................................................................................................................................... 10

Appendix 1- Position Request Criteria (including 2022 dates/deadlines)............................... 12

Appendix 2: Advice on Shared Positions................................................................................... 14

Appendix 3 Historical Data on Faculty Size and Student Population 2003-2021.................. 16

Introduction

In this report the Academic Planning Committee (APC) identifies key issues facing us in Academic Affairs, policy changes to address them, the data we’ll use to measure progress, and the outcomes expected. The APC will continue to submit a report to Faculty Council at the beginning of each spring semester to inform conversations about strategic planning, academic policies, curricular change, and staffing requests during the academic year.

Our 2022 report covers the work the APC has done since our last report in May 2021, issues to be addressed in spring 2022, and an outline of steps to foster longer-term planning for efficiency, equity, and innovation across departments, programs, and Academic Communities. The changes proposed in this report aim to make the best use of our human and fiscal resources through new processes of data analysis and strategic realignment. Additionally, we project a continuing cost savings of up to $600,000 per year by 2024 from these proposed changes. The work ahead of us will be collaborative and iterative, as we work together to chart a sustainable path for the academic program at St. Lawrence in uncertain times.

APC’s Work To-Date

The APC was launched in fall 2020 to help us envision and manage change in the rapidly- evolving higher education environment. As we all know, SLU is facing a challenging financial situation with multi-year structural deficits, serious problems due to deferred maintenance, and declining undergraduate enrollments. However, we have new opportunities before us as we plan for the future. For example, after a pause, we are now in the midst of a strong year of hiring of tenure track faculty across our curriculum (approved positions 2022-23). In the last year and a half we approved five new majors to help recruit students and provide new, interdisciplinary pathways for their education. And Senior Staff has approved the APC’s recommendation to establish the Center for Innovation in Teaching and Assessment.

In May 2021, the APC delivered its first report to Faculty Council. Among the recommendations in that report were a plan for restructuring in Academic Affairs to develop new processes for analysis and collaborative decision-making and to address issues of faculty workload to improve equity and efficiency. A key step toward these goals was the formation of five Academic Communities (Humanities, Social Sciences, Natural Sciences & Math, Arts, and Interdisciplinary), which met four times over fall 2021 to discuss balancing the weekly course schedule, the delivery of and compensation for senior-level mentored research [SYEs], capital requests, and various components of faculty workload.

At the same time, by working with departments, we have made significant progress in spreading courses across class days and times; this helps our students immensely by increasing their range of options in course registration. In addition, the APC developed new protocols for soliciting and providing feedback on position requests, guidance on shared faculty positions, and guidance and data to help departments and programs craft longer-term academic plans for course offerings, curriculum, and staffing.

Issues to Address in Spring 2022

This year’s APC report lays out our plan for spring 2022 discussions with Academic Communities to develop processes and information for multi-year academic planning at SLU. We approach our work with a single-minded commitment to the liberal arts. Our curricular offerings for students need to be robust, diverse, and flexible, even as University resources are strained. Identifying efficiencies and cost savings in our work that can conserve University resources must also be done in a climate where attention to faculty/staff workload and equity informs change. These goals will require us to re-examine our norms and course offerings to maximize flexibility for students and academic programs.

Student-Faculty Ratio

As President Morris works with Senior Staff and the campus community to chart SLU’s strategic direction, she and Dean Schonberg have agreed that the APC’s operating principle will be to hold our student-faculty ratio relatively constant at 12.5 to 1, which was the average over the last ten years (note that this ratio is based on full-time tenured, tenure-track, and visiting faculty; see detail below). Because student enrollment has declined, a smaller student body will mean a smaller faculty overall.

We anticipate a decrease in the overall number of full-time faculty of 5 total positions over the next two hiring cycles to return to our 2019 student-faculty ratio based on an estimated undergraduate student enrollment of 2275. Even as we continue to encourage innovation within the curriculum, reductions in the overall size of the faculty will be necessary. It is very important to note that any reduction in tenure-track positions will occur through attrition, that is, non- replacement of faculty who leave the University. Our plans will necessarily be adjusted over time in response to actual student enrollment. These changes will necessitate administrative changes to ensure effective use of resources and broader faculty discussions about how academic programs can continue to evolve and be flexible to meet the needs of current and future students.

The body of this report provides more detail on how we will develop broad guidelines on faculty workload and equity, align staffing and enrollments more closely, and work with departments/programs on long-term planning and processes to generate innovation and ensure efficiency and cost savings. As a report designed to outline strategic planning efforts within Academic Affairs, we look forward to working with other divisions as we all find efficiencies in our work during these challenging times.

Faculty Workload and Equity

Class Sizes and Course Enrollments

Strategic planning within Academic Affairs must consider the balance between projected enrollments and staffing, as well as faculty workload and equity across the curriculum in

teaching and service. Academic Communities have already become a key site to share norms and practices between departments and programs with related pedagogies.

During the fall 2021 semester, Academic Communities discussed departmental practices in determining teaching obligations and norms of course sizes to better understand approaches to course caps and pedagogical needs of different disciplinary approaches. While class sizes need to account for different pedagogies, space constraints, etc., we need broad and inclusive guidelines to maximize opportunities for our students and increase equity in faculty workloads. Policies and norms related to teaching and service loads have been developed at peer-institutions, and APC will work with Academic Communities and faculty governance bodies to develop a similar policy at St. Lawrence.¹

St. Lawrence currently does not have a policy on course sizes or that addresses discrepancies in faculty workload across departments and programs. For spring 2022 the APC will work with Academic Communities and faculty governance committees to define guidelines for faculty workload. To define expected norms, we will track course enrollments over time to set a minimum range for course enrollments and a range of average numbers of students taught by faculty members, establishing a regular cycle of data collection and analysis. We expect these changes to provide greater transparency and equity in expectations for faculty teaching and a more equitable student experience within and across departments and programs.

Course Releases

SYEs and mentored student research opportunities are an essential part of the SLU experience. However, our May 2021 report revealed that opportunities to foster mentored research and take earned course releases/compensation were not equitable across all departments/programs. The APC concluded that our current model was unsustainable, requiring instead either substantial additional investment and/or a change to SYE delivery and faculty compensation. The Academic Affairs Committee reviewed these recommendations in fall 2021. The APC will work with the Dean, Academic Affairs Committee, and Faculty Council this spring to try to resolve the question of future SYE compensation models.

A related issue to be addressed in spring 2022 is our policy and practice of granting other course releases. We currently have an established formula for department/program chair compensation through stipends and course releases depending on the size of the department/program and the complexity of its administration. The APC will develop a similarly transparent process for granting course releases for other kinds of work to increase equity and reduce the overall number of course releases granted in a given year.

Staffing and Position Requests

Net Reduction of Tenure-Track Faculty Lines

APC assumed the role of the Staffing Committee in 2020. In the spring of 2021, APC recommended several changes to the position request process to encourage greater transparency and share insight in how staffing recommendations to Senior Staff are made. The APC developed a pre-proposal process to give departments/programs preliminary feedback before final position requests were due in June. We also shared our criteria (see Appendix 1) for evaluating position requests, as well as the list of requests we received, to increase transparency in the process. The President, Dean of Academic Affairs, and the CFO then carefully considered our recommendations when making the final decisions on which positions could be funded within budgetary constraints.

During fall 2021, APC worked on drafting guidelines for closer departmental collaboration on position requests, especially on best practices for joint/shared positions (see Appendix 2). In addition, Faculty Council is considering changes to instructor and academic support positions in which teaching is substantial. For the 2022 position request cycle, we will continue to encourage departments and programs to work collaboratively on requests which address both the needs of specific majors and minors and the broader needs of the university.

The APC will continue to balance the shifting interests of our student population, with a strong commitment to the core of the liberal arts, when evaluating position requests. We need to ensure new programs have the opportunity to develop and thrive, while also maintaining commitments to established, successful areas of the curriculum. This is why we encouraged and will continue to encourage some departments and programs to consider joint or shared position requests, when appropriate and possible. We also note that throughout higher education faculty from under- represented groups tend to be best represented in positions at the intersections of traditional disciplines. Thus, well-conceived joint and/or interdisciplinary positions may offer a greater chance to increase the diversity of the faculty.

Staffing needs and position requests will be informed by broad curricular needs within our liberal arts mission as well as trends in student enrollment. We expect that the challenging budget environment will require tough choices as we may need to shift resources from one area of the curriculum to another when a tenure-track position becomes available through attrition. As the chart below shows, we will need to balance the number of full-time faculty positions with a declining student population to help address our fiscal challenges and bring the student-faculty ratio closer to our historic average.

Given national projections of college enrollments, we need to prepare for the likelihood of a relatively small but sustained decline in student enrollment. To help SLU move towards fiscal sustainability and maintain the close faculty-student connections that are integral to the student experience, the size of the faculty will have to be proportionally smaller.

There are several ways to calculate student-faculty ratios, including the ratio that SLU reports for the rankings in US News and World Report.² Here we want to highlight the relationship between the overall number of students enrolled at SLU in relation to the overall number of full-time faculty. Therefore, the student-faculty ratio discussed in this report is the ratio of undergraduate FTE enrollments, to full-time faculty lines, currently at 11.8 to 1. The current ratio is not in line with our 10-year historical average student-faculty ratio of 12.5 to 1 (See Appendix 3).

Specifically, the decline in undergraduate enrollments began before the pandemic and accelerated after spring 2020. While our undergraduate FTE enrollment has declined by 189 students from Fall 2018 to Fall 2021, the number of tenured and tenure-track lines has remained unchanged, with some reductions made only in the number of full-time faculty at the visiting level.

 

	2018	2019	2020	2021	2018-2021 Change	Targets by 2024	2024 Goals
Undergraduate Enrollment	2419	2373	2259	2230	-189	+45	2275
Budgeted T/TT lines at UG level 3	174	174	174	174	0	-5	169
Additional visiting FT faculty lines 4	22	17	13	14	-8	+0	14
Total Full-Time Faculty Lines	196	191	187	188	-11	-5	183
Student to Faculty Ratio	12.3	12.4	12.1	11.8	-0.5	+0.6	12.43

 

If we assume new recruitment and retention efforts will allow student enrollment to grow back to 2275 in the coming years, a full-time faculty size of 183 by fall 2024, or five fewer than the current level, would bring us back to the 2019 student-faculty ratio, and closer to the historical average of 12.5 to 1. This would also result in a projected, continuing savings of $491,750 at the current rate of salaries and benefits for tenure-track faculty.

To achieve this net reduction of five tenure-track lines by fall 2024 the APC, the President, and the Dean recommend spreading the reduction out over the next two position request cycles.

There are no plans to cut currently-filled full-time tenured or tenure-track faculty positions. Rather, the intention is to reduce the size of the faculty through attrition.

In AY 2023-2024, the APC will work with the Budget and Finance Committee, Faculty Council, and the President and the Dean to recommend further changes to the size of the SLU faculty, if needed, based on future enrollment projections, revenues, and curricular needs. These future targets will need to include both tenure-track and visiting positions in our broader goals, and be flexible enough to account for minor variations in the size of the student body and faculty attrition rates. We will also need to ensure that our student-faculty ratio targets do not compromise the reputation of St. Lawrence as a leading liberal arts college.

Visiting Faculty Lines

The Dean’s Office and the Associate Vice President for Academic Planning will work closely with the Office of Finance to establish a target for the total number of visiting faculty lines (reappointed and newly requested) that can be expected each year and track approved reappointment length. Staffing requests, beginning with Spring 2022, will need to include specifics about the length of terms for which new visiting faculty lines are requested (1, 2 or 3- year appointments), and APC staffing recommendations will be based on the total target of visiting positions available.

Reduction in Adjunct Hires

To continue to retain tenure-track and tenured positions in the faculty, we must further reduce staffing costs in Academic Affairs by decreasing the budget for adjunct hires by 8% in fiscal year 2023, leading to annual savings of approximately $50,000 (6-8 adjunct positions). These reductions will apply beginning with the spring 2023 semester and must be considered as part of departmental/program planning beginning in fall 2022. The proposed reductions in course releases will make planning for the decreased number of adjunct hires easier.

Thus, it is crucial that departments engage in long-term planning of staffing, course offerings, and major requirements, to ensure that as the curriculum develops and resources shift, we will be able to offer courses that support the wider liberal arts curriculum along with rigorous and flexible majors and minors.

Course scheduling

In fall 2021, the APC and the Registrar took offline 90-minute courses scheduled on Monday- Wednesday or Wednesday-Friday from 10:30-12:00 for spring 2022 courses, in order to allow more one-hour courses to be scheduled during this time frame on Monday-Wednesday-Friday (3 days a week). This change was designed to allow students more course choices and help with classroom scheduling by spreading course offerings across the entire week. This policy has been

extended for fall 2022. The APC committee will assess the success of this change with metrics including data on numbers of 3-day per week courses before and after the policy change and the percentage of student registrations on Fridays in previous semesters and now. First data will be reviewed during Spring 2022.

Additional Changes and Cost Savings

Academic Affairs Administrative Restructuring

Currently the Dean’s and Registrar’s offices are implementing staffing changes that will allow this work to move forward, while at the same time resulting in administrative budget savings of approximately $40,000 per year.

Departmental Operating Budgets

Beginning in spring 2022, the APC will work with Academic Communities to consolidate departmental/program operating budgets, where possible, with a goal of reducing overall spending.

Based on the Area Studies model which came out of the recession response budgeting process in 2009, these new Academic Community funds would be used to foster greater interdisciplinary collaboration and help streamline/centralize the event planning process across campus. Through an Academic Community funding model, we can ensure greater use of the calendar, avoid competing events, and help maximize the impact of guest-speakers and other academic programming across campus.

The APC proposes that Academic Community funds be consolidated with the following lines in departmental/program budgets into a shared account (Entertainment, Business Travel, Honoraria).⁵  Faculty within each Academic Community would work through department chairs/program coordinators to propose funding for events to their respective Academic Community. This new pooled fund creates a larger budget line for premier interdisciplinary event planning and the ability for all events to be centrally coordinated and promoted across the entire division and university community.

Long-Term Planning and Innovation

Proactive planning will help us build resilience and flexibility as the higher education environment shifts. One thing we learned through our conversations in Academic Communities in fall 2021 was that there is considerable variety across departments and programs in planning processes. Much of our planning to teach courses at present is geared to only a one- or two-year cycle to request faculty positions (full-time and adjunct), sabbatical and FYP leaves, and off- campus program participation. Full replacements for faculty members who are away from teaching will continue to be tight, so a more strategic approach that extends planning out to include the seven-year sabbatical cycle is needed. This planning should take into consideration the possibility that not all leaves will be replaced and therefore build in flexibility. Departments also should consider whether their major/minor curriculum has requirements that can only be fulfilled by one department member and how to plan for that member’s leaves, if full replacement is not possible. Equity and efficiency in the distribution of teaching obligations across course levels are other important considerations.

As an example, if a department or program has three people who are eligible to be away from teaching for a full year, how might they stagger leaves, sabbaticals, and abroad participation so that all three members are not away at the same time? Each faculty member’s individual sabbatical clock would remain unchanged, even if they delayed taking their sabbatical for one or two semesters. For another example, if particular types of courses are regularly taught by adjuncts or contingent faculty (such as introductory-level courses), how would the department/program deliver those courses if non-tenure track instructors were unavailable?

Additionally, if a department or program anticipates a retirement in the next three to five years and has been granted a visiting appointment for another reason, how might they cover current courses and experiment with a new field or specialty to gauge student interest?

Additional considerations for departmental/program planning and for faculty workload issues discussed above will be the review of course offerings and major/minor requirements with an eye to maximizing the number of seats available in courses in high demand, minimizing courses with persistently low enrollments, and staffing our signature first-year and sophomore programs. This review process will be based in part on policy established by the APC and Academic Communities on minimum course size and the guidelines for departments/programs to use in developing and sharing longer term plans.

Finally, we need to be able to plan for curricular innovation and change in a regular feedback loop of student learning assessment, planning, and adaptation. The pandemic interrupted the momentum we had started to build on assessment of student learning by fall 2019. The Assessment Committee and the APC will work with departments/programs in spring 2022 to reset plans for assessment to help us understand how students are learning now, what is working well, and what changes or innovations could invigorate our teaching and curriculum. The recently approved Center for Innovation in Teaching and Assessment also will be a site for conversations about pedagogy, assessment, and curricular innovation, in addition to the Academic Communities and departments/programs.

Conclusion

The APC’s early spring report on the University’s academic plan will be an annual commitment, offering guidance on planning, policies, and processes in Academic Affairs. The APC and

Academic Communities combined with existing bodies such as University committees offer us more representative and collaborative spaces and opportunities for discussion among faculty and staff in Academic Affairs. The APC has been and will continue to seek out ideas and feedback and share our work in multiple ways. The link to the Campus Feedback for Academic Planning Committee survey is still open, if anyone would like to send thoughts to the committee that way.

Topics for discussion with departments/programs, Academic Communities, and University committees for spring 2022 will include faculty staffing for the 2023-2024 hiring cycle, various issues of faculty workload, curricular flexibility for students and departments, the establishment of the Center for Innovation in Teaching and Assessment and appointment of a faculty director, and the development of guidelines for long-term planning in Academic Affairs. Finally, the APC will seek feedback on its work and that of the Academic Communities to see if changes are needed.

Respectfully submitted,

Members of the Academic Planning Committee:

Sarah Barber (ADFY), Maegan Bos (AC-Natural Sciences and Math), Matt Carotenuto (co- chair, ISAC), Brian Chezum (AC-Social Sciences), Kimberly Flint-Hamilton (ADDI), Neil Forkey (AC-Interdisciplinary), Elun Gabriel (ADAAP), Alessandro Giardino (AC-Humanities, fall 2021), Paul Graham (AC-Humanities, spring 2022), David Henderson (AC-Arts), Evelyn Jennings (co-chair, ADFA), Daniel M. Look (FC), Marina Llorente (ADIIS),

Lorie MacKenzie (AVPA), Judith Nagel-Myers (AAC), Karl Schonberg (VPDAA), Christine Zimmerman (ex-officio, Dir. IR, Assessment Committee)

 

 

 

Appendix 1- Position Request Criteria (including 2022 dates/deadlines)

Emailed to Faculty list May 24, 2021

Dear Colleagues,

When the Academic Planning Committee (APC) was formed last fall, one of its duties was to take over the work previously done by the Staffing Committee. In doing so, one goal was to make the staffing decision-making process more transparent. To that end in this message we provide the list of pre-requests received by the APC in April 2021 and a list and explanation of factors that the APC is taking into consideration to review and provide feedback on these proposals.

As part of our discussions of the anticipated position requests submitted by chairs in late April, the APC agreed on a set of general guidelines to frame the entire position request and allocation process. This process includes the discussions and recommendations of the APC as well as the discussions within and among departments and programs as they think about curricula and staffing and prepare full position requests. To increase transparency in the process, we wish to share these general guidelines here with the whole faculty.

1. Long-range planning. The APC will work with departments and programs in the next year to develop three- to five-year academic plans that will collectively guide us in thinking about the overall staffing picture. We certainly will continue to encourage those requesting positions to be thinking about long-range planning in their curricula and in considering anticipated retirements.
2. Retirements. At the same time, the APC normally will not recommend replacing faculty members until they retire and may or may not recommend reallocation.
3. Replacements of current TT lines or requesting new positions. Departments and programs making staffing requests and the APC will need to be clear about whether the positions requested are current tenure-track faculty lines in their departments/programs or are new TT requests. For example, visiting positions authorized in the past or future that were not granted as replacements for TT faculty will be viewed as new positions.
4. Course enrollments and numbers of majors. Position request proposals in coming years, as in the past, will need to carefully consider course enrollments (over time and over levels and types of courses) and the numbers of majors or minors over time.
   • Though proposals for new majors were approved by the SLU faculty this past spring, they also will need to be approved by New York State. The new major proposals included enrollment projections, but an anticipated increase in enrollment is not compelling in requests for TT positions. The APC may suggest requesting a visiting position to explore new fields and/or potential student interest as part of a long-term academic plan.
   • Once the demand has increased, and the average class size has increased, the proposal will be more compelling. Therefore, interim staffing plans should be considered.
5. Service to or connections with other departments or programs.
   • Many of the pre-proposals we received helpfully noted how a position could contribute beyond the department/program of hire. The APC will provide feedback on potential combined or shared positions and will continue to encourage such combined requests, where possible.
   • Formal position request proposals should include letters of support from outside departments/programs implicated in the request. The more specific proposing departments can be about the potential courses taught (mapped over several years) and other benefits of the combination, the more compelling the proposal will be.
6. Coverage of fields. The argument that a discipline is missing an important area of study if a proposed position is unfilled will be less compelling than an argument about how our current and future students will benefit specifically from having this area of study represented by a hire in the department or program.
7. Major requirements and bottlenecks. In the coming year, the APC anticipates asking all departments and programs to consider ways that they can streamline major requirements to create flexibility. These conversations should consider any challenges that students have in navigating and completing a major AND any staffing pressure. Departments and programs also will need to consider potential changes to SYE delivery. Additional faculty lines will not be the sole solution to bottlenecks in our curriculum. We may need to consider other ways to configure our requirements and serve students’ interests.
8. Finally, departments and programs should consider the goals of their major curriculum, since the long-term outcomes for our students vary considerably.
9. We do not yet know how many tenure-track or visiting lines will be approved for 2022- 2023, and it is unlikely that all faculty staffing requests will be approved.

We hope that the sharing of these guidelines and the list of submitted pre-requests is helpful in stimulating discussion and collaboration. We will be in touch soon with the chairs and coordinators who submitted anticipated position requests with specific feedback on those proposals.

Sincerely,

Members of the Academic Planning Committee

The deadline for submitting formal position requests for the 2023-2024 hiring cycle is July 1, 2022.

Appendix 2: Advice on Shared Positions

Re: Recommendations for shared faculty positions From: Academic Planning Committee

Date: November 15, 2021

For departments and programs developing new or replacement position proposals

• Consider conceiving and developing positions jointly, rather than in a single department or one department/program developing the position and asking another department/program to sign on.
• Plot out a three-year rotation of courses to be taught, allowing room for new course development by the faculty member.
• Unless explicitly specified otherwise, share positions are 50% in each of two departments/programs.
• Evaluate the needs for specific courses which could not be cross-listed. If 50% or more of the courses might not or could not be cross-listed, then a joint position may not be the best approach.
• Agree on a split in course offerings, major/minor advising, service, and other expectations for the candidate which would also allow a new hire to develop their own connections and courses.
• Discuss department/program service expectations and how chairs/coordinators can ensure that service commitments are in line with the shared nature of the position, meaning not simply double the service expectations. Note that attending two distinct department meetings is an added service commitment for those in shared positions, so meeting scheduling for each should take account of the other. Consider exempting those in shared positions from other kinds of departmental service (e.g., ad hoc departmental committees, etc.).
• Establish a mentoring plan which specifies the role of each program in advising and supporting the new faculty member.

For search committees during the search process

• Revisit and agree upon the three-year rotation of courses mapped out earlier.
• Share the nature of the joint position with candidates in the job ad or in advance of any interviews.
• Discuss with all involved in the search, plans for: course load; mentoring; office and lab space; and annual, mid-pro, and tenure review processes. Candidates should receive clear and consistent information throughout the hiring process and after arrival.

The ADFA will build a conversation about negotiating the details of a shared position into the interview process.

For HR and Dean’s Office--the appointment letter

Replace language, “Your duties will be worked out in consultation with your department chair and the Dean of Academic Affairs. Appropriate evaluation of your performance is the department chair’s responsibility.” New language to read, “Your duties will be worked out in consultation with both department/program chairs and the Dean of Academic Affairs.

Appropriate evaluation of your performance will be the responsibility of the department/program chairs jointly.”

For department chairs/program coordinators during the probationary period

• Balance the faculty member’s course offerings between departments/programs over a three-year period.
• Carry our joint annual reviews. Discuss shared service loads with the faculty member as part of the review process.
• Design a joint mid-probationary review process appropriate to the faculty member and agree in writing on a timeline in the second year.
• Note any changes to the terms of the position in the final consensus report.

Mid-probationary review as noted in the Faculty Handbook, “In the event that the individual under review has been involved with more than one department or program, the Dean of

Academic Affairs will consult with the faculty member and all relevant department chairpersons and program coordinators and design a review process appropriate to the

faculty member him or her.” Tenure and promotion: as noted in the Faculty Handbook, “In the event that the individual under review has been involved with more than one department or program, the Dean of Academic Affairs will consult with the faculty member and all relevant department chairpersons and program coordinators and design a review process appropriate to him or her.”

Appendix 3 Historical Data on Faculty Size and Student Population 2003-2021

 

Baseline Data 2003-2021

 

 

¹See for instance Oberlin's 2020 report "Rethinking the way we gather": A proposed point system for university service is discussed starting on the bottom of page nine and continuing through the first column of page eleven. Middlebury has established guidelines on teaching workloads which can be reviewed at the link below http://www.middlebury.edu/academics/administration/chairs_directors_coord/teaching_curriculum

² The student-faculty ratio published in US News focuses on the student-faculty teaching ratio. It is derived by dividing the FTE of undergraduate students on campus by the FTE of teaching instructors on campus (which includes FT, PT, and staff teaching courses). The student-faculty ratio used by APC here is a fiscal student-faculty ratio, focusing on tuition revenues and expenditures. It divides the total undergraduate student body (including those on study abroad) by the total number of FTE tenure/tenure-track lines plus full-time visiting faculty.

³The goals here are estimates. They include vacancies filled by visiting faculty (for more data, see Appendix 3); note that shared tenure-track positions are counted in the chart above as budgeted full-time equivalencies of 0.67 full-time lines.

⁴ Reductions in visiting faculty positions since 2018 have allowed us to concentrate investments on tenure-track lines. Our goal of 14 visitors by 2024 is an estimate and will be based on the long-range planning data collected in the coming semesters.

⁵ Funds associated with restricted gifts/endowments may be exempt from the pool based on the fund language.