[Vision2020] UI Programs Under Consideration for Closure or Consolidation

[Kenneth Marcy]

On Tuesday 20 January 2009 19:52:13 Chasuk wrote:
> http://www.uidaho.edu/provost/universitytransformationsites/firstroundofpro
>gramsforconsideration.aspx
<snip>
> Scary days!

It may yet be early to announce Danger, Will Robinson! Danger, Will Robinson!

I have not been a party to any of the conversations that lead to the creation 
of the list at the web site above. However, despite counting 42 programs on 
the list, a closer examination of them suggests that the University may be 
going through a process not unlike a thinning out of automobile nameplates 
among the automobile manufacturers. Car makers may be asking themselves 
whether they really need to manufacture a Ford Taurus and a Mercury Sable, 
for example, two name brands with nearly identical vehicle characteristics.

Analogously, there may be some programs, in the College of Natural Resources, 
for example, for which a common "nameplate" may appropriate, and simplify 
program administration in the process. In other cases, it appears, as in the 
cases of the many M.A.T. programs being considered, that there just is not 
enough demand for Masters level teaching specialists in those areas to 
justify the administrative costs of the programs. However, the undergraduate 
programs in most of those areas appear to continue to have strong demand, so 
the departments will be able to focus on better undergraduate teaching.

What does concern me are those instances of baccalaureate programs being 
considered, especially those in the physics department. Physics is a basic 
science, closely related to chemistry and various engineering disciplines, 
with growing connections to materials science and to photonic computation.

If there are problems with demand for undergraduate majors in physics, this is 
a challenge that should be examined from both the vantages of curriculum and 
marketing. What is needed is a basic undergraduate physics degree that can be 
accomplished in four years by median caliber undergraduate enrollees, and 
which can be scaled up to accommodate the abilities of those exceptional 
students whose performance, or whose persistence through five or six years of 
undergraduate study, affords them opportunities for advanced achievement. The 
curriculum should be calibrated to the usual enrollees, not fantasy students. 
Likewise, the faculty should be actively engaged in teaching, not otherwise.

With an appropriately flexible curriculum and faculty in place, if recruitment 
for physics undergraduates is necessary to keep the lecture halls, class 
rooms, and laboratories full of students, and especially with active physics 
majors, then let's get a recruiting program designed and into action. Other 
B.A. or B.S. programs might benefit from an analogous approach, and more 
power to them if they are able. However, I am more concerned with the physics 
program because of its deep and fundamental connections with other subjects.


Ken