Hmmm...I see the fiancee has been putting her early education skills to work :biglaugh:
ISU Likely to Cut Departments
- Thread starter cigaretteman
- Start date
Hmmm...I see the fiancee has been putting her early education skills to work :biglaugh:
I'm with you in that concern. I majored in electrical engineering at ISU, so it isn't that I am trying to defend my own major, but you need programs like theater, music, and other humanities to balance out the university. Also, I think it is possible to remove a major while still having the department. This wouldn't help the problem of getting rid of tenured faculty though.
I think the best thing the university can do is combine programs where needed and trim the fat without taking away majors that bring a balance of education to the school. I would also argue that programs like German or Russian studies may be less necessary (in the eyes of some), but also don't cost as much to maintain outside of faculty salaries (and you can probably get by on 2-3 professors in a department. We also might want to look at how many schools offer specific programs, because if one is becoming rarer, there may be less students interested, but they will flock to schools that still have the major.
Theater department was already rolled into the music department a few years back, so I think that's a pretty moot point.
Yeah genetics has never done anything for farmers!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1I hope you meant to put a jimlad on that statement.
Yes, I'm a plant breeder. Genetics is my life. However, most of the work in high powered genetics is in Drosophila (Fruit Flies) and Arabidopsis (A worthless weed) and 99% of that stuff doesn't do jack crap for a farmer as its non-applicable to crop improvement. An example: its great that you found a loci with non-allelic, non-complementation in a freaking fly, now what? As Norman Borlaug would say, how does that help hungry people in Africa? If you can cure cancer with it great, but for my life of crop improvement, shut up and get out of the way.
Genetics is like a flashlight in dark. We find something, get really excited, make some conclusions and then look around some more with our flashlight and realize we were totally wrong. Geneticists are even starting to rethink some of the basic concepts such as what is a gene. This technology of high powered genetics has so far to go its not even funny.
High powered genetics is a tool, and a pretty mediocre one at that. At the end of the day, the same concepts that we have been using for the last 150 years are still at the heart of genetic improvement in crops.
ISU has an unhealthy attachment to molecular biology, specifically genetics.
Last edited:
And how much money are those departments bringing in? Because something is filling those research labs in Molybio and I don't think its design students with their 'studio' space.
As much as you might want to say your program is the best and should never be cut, the decision should really come down to a couple of things:
1. Money. How much is your department costing the university? How much are you bringing in? (And I'm not talking about the 'money' transferred to the english department for each class that I'm forced to take there as an engineer. I'm referring to grant money from the government and to donations from alumni. Do your professors have patents bringing money to the university? Really this one comes down to are we making as much back as we put in, or are you being paid for by the rest of the unversity?
2. Prestige. Is your program ranked nationally, either for graduate or undergrad? Are you bringing in the top minds in your field to do research or are you taking anyone who applies? In my mind, this can make up for a department that may not bring in as much grant money. But still, better departments are more likely to get more funding so it comes back to issue one...
1. Money. How much is your department costing the university? How much are you bringing in? (And I'm not talking about the 'money' transferred to the english department for each class that I'm forced to take there as an engineer. I'm referring to grant money from the government and to donations from alumni. Do your professors have patents bringing money to the university? Really this one comes down to are we making as much back as we put in, or are you being paid for by the rest of the unversity?
2. Prestige. Is your program ranked nationally, either for graduate or undergrad? Are you bringing in the top minds in your field to do research or are you taking anyone who applies? In my mind, this can make up for a department that may not bring in as much grant money. But still, better departments are more likely to get more funding so it comes back to issue one...
Here's the problem with this. To teach at the secondary level, you need to major in what you're going to teach (or at least minor) with NCLB. Math, Science, English, Spanish, etc. programs won't bring in a lot of money to the University, (the focus is on the intricacies of the subject) but the couplet with the Education department brings in some. If we look at education as a truly capitalistic thing (what are you bringing in vs. what your program costs), then we need to completely disband any notion that education should be available to everyone.
Granted that Post Secondary is different, the principle is the same. If you're costing money, you shouldn't be there.
You might as well cut the half the university and the athletic department then.
I'm not saying that the programs should be cut, just that if it comes down to the university having to cut departments, that should be how the decision is made. And having rankings should be secondary to money, because you can't pay people on the good feelings they get from doing something good for the world.
What we should do is go to a system with two different types of professor, the teaching professor, who can still do some research, but whose main job is teaching and who is reminded of that often (sorry, I had a prof who reminded us every time we complained about his lack of decent office hours that 'my main job at the university is research' and would launch into a tirade about the percentages of his time he was supposed to spend on teaching, research, number of publications each year and the like), and the second type should be the research professor, whose main job is research, but still teaches once in a while. This would both ensure that the students are being taught well and that someone is bringing money to the school.
Does anyone know where we could see the financials for the different departments at ISU, things like total brought in and total spent?
It's highly likely departments will be merged, with entomology, agronomy and plant pathology (maybe more) are perfect examples. This isn't earthshattering - it's been happening at peer institutions for years. Personally, I think it could lead to better collaboration (as long as there is a solid department chair in place that is capable of keeping the big picture and the minutia in perspective).
But, I'm not sure how much money it will really saved. Sure, some economy can be found in reducing the number of admin assistants and accounting clerks - but as of you put more people in one department, you need more infrastructure.
The departments I specifically mentioned have been slowing strangling for some time. Good folks have left, with the most recent example of Palle Pederson, soybean extension agronomist. For year retirees have not been replaced and thus areas of expertise have disappeared.
Some may say that Extension should be phased out. Because they've not been able to hire/retain good people in this arena, Extension is nearly nonexistent. Now, we're driving a boat where industry provides 'extension' information that is biased. There's not much opportunity for a citizen to get unbiased information ... especially info not attached to you purchased seed/pesticides/etc. that you may not really need.
Money, money, money. It's all about money and the lack thereof.
But, I'm not sure how much money it will really saved. Sure, some economy can be found in reducing the number of admin assistants and accounting clerks - but as of you put more people in one department, you need more infrastructure.
The departments I specifically mentioned have been slowing strangling for some time. Good folks have left, with the most recent example of Palle Pederson, soybean extension agronomist. For year retirees have not been replaced and thus areas of expertise have disappeared.
Some may say that Extension should be phased out. Because they've not been able to hire/retain good people in this arena, Extension is nearly nonexistent. Now, we're driving a boat where industry provides 'extension' information that is biased. There's not much opportunity for a citizen to get unbiased information ... especially info not attached to you purchased seed/pesticides/etc. that you may not really need.
Money, money, money. It's all about money and the lack thereof.
Yeah, don't think they would cut a lot of the design majors. About half of the students in each are out of state, which brings in a lot more than those which are almost 90% Iowa kids. Also, the national rankings thing.
Ironically enough, there's a lot of talk in the CoD about adding a few more majors (Industrial Design for example), not cutting them. How's that throw you?
Ironically enough, there's a lot of talk in the CoD about adding a few more majors (Industrial Design for example), not cutting them. How's that throw you?
just passing on what my poli sci teacher said. Apparently he thinks his job is in jeapordy because he was basically begging us to write letters to the dean and anyone we could.
