Ls ee he
Se
State University of New York at Albany
SELF-STUDY REPORT
in Preparation for the
Accrediting Visitation by Middle States
Association of Colleges and Secondary
Schools
January, 1971
SUNYA Middle States Self-Study (
Table of Contents
Page
Data Summary 1
Preface 3
Introduction ds)
Purposes _
Historical Development 8
Section I. External Relations 12
A. General Introduction 12
B. Central Administration 15
C. Academic Development 16
D. Planning and Enrollment 17 |
E. Financial and Personnel Management 18
1. General Policy Statement 18
2. Fiscal Management 19
3. Administrative Salary Plan 21
4. Professional Collective Bargaining 21
F, SUNY Senate 22
G. University Council 23
H. Alumni 24
I. Community Relations 25
J. Research Foundation 29
Section II. SUNYA Operation 30
Introduction 30
A. Administrative Structures 31
l. President 31
2. Vice Presidents 33
3. College and Schools | 4]
| 4. Campus Administrative Units 43
B. Governance 45
Introduction . 45
1. SUNYA Senate 46
2. College and School 32
3. Student Government a3
C. Instructional Programs ov
1. Undergraduate Program 38
2. Graduate Programs 62
3. Summer Session and Part-time Study 66 .
4, Continuing Education 67 (
5. Instructional Resources 68
Library
Computing Center
Educational Communications Center
6. Inter-institutional and Foreign Programs
International Academic Programs
International Assistance Programs
Domestic Inter-institutional Programs
7. Program Development and Future Plans
~ College of Arts and Sciences
Doctor of Arts
School of Business
School of Criminal Justice
School of Education
General Studies.
School of Library Science
School of Nursing
Graduate School of Public Affairs
School of Social Welfare
D, Students
1. Enrollment
2. Undergraduate Admissions
3. Graduate Admissions
4. General Studies Admissions
3. Financial Support
6, Campus Unrest
E. Faculty
SUNY and SUNYA Policy
Appointments
Salaries
Faculty Workload
F, Planning and Budgeting
Sources of Revenue
Analysis of Present Support
Problems Facing Campus Growth-External Constraints
Problems Facing Campus Growth-Internal Constraints
Budget Formulation and Approval
Budget Execution
Ou RW hY&
. e . . e e
G. Research
Present Status
Policies on Unrestricted Research & Conflict of Interest
Weaknesses
Strengths
H. Facilities
Present Facilities
Projected Facilities Development
General Policy and Procedure
Problems
68
68
69
71
71
73
74
76
76
77
80
81
83
85
86
88
90
91
93
93
98
105
11]
112
117
124
124
124
125
130
134
134
135
144
144
145
147
148
148
150
150
151
152
152
153
153
154
Section III. The Humanities
Purposes
Organization and Governance
Students .
Academic Programs
' Faculty.
Resources
Budget ©
Teaching
Fine and Performing Arts
Intedisciplinary Efforts
Hl
H3
H7
H11
H22
H27
H34
H42
H50
H54
Name of Institution:
Type of Institution:
Control:
Founded:
Present
Structure:
DATA SUMMARY FOR STATE UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK AT ALBANY
State
1844-
1890-
1905-
1914-
1948-
1959-
1961-
1962-
University Center.
State University of New York at Albany
University of New York (as an integrated unit)
as a normal school
as a normal college
as a four-year college empowered to confer the B.A. and B.S.
degrees with a year of post-graduate study leading to the
Ph.B. degree
as New York State College for Teachers
as a unit of the newly established State University of New York
as State University College of Education at Albany
as State University College at Albany
as State University of New York at Albany
Multi-purpose coeducational undergraduate and graduate
Date Degrees
Instructional Units Organized Awarded
College of Arts and Sciences (1962) B.A., B.S.,
M.A., M.S.,
Ph.D.
School of Business (1962) B.S., M.S.,
M.B.A.
School of Criminal Justice (1967) M.A., Ph.D.
School of Education (1962) M.A., M.S.,
Ed.D., Ph.D.
School of Library Science (1962) M.L.S.
School of Nursing (1967) B.S.
Graduate School of Public Affairs
(operated as a separate unit until
September, 1966) (1962) M.A., M.P.A.
D.P.A., Ph.D
School of Social Welfare (1964) M.S.W
Administrative Units
Office of Undergraduate Studies
Office of Graduate Studies
College of General Studies
Present Accreditation:
Middle States Association of Colleges and Secondary Schools
National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education
New York State Education Department
American Chemical Society
American Library Association
National Council on Social Work Education
Student Enrollment (Fall 1970 Headcount) :
Full-time:
Part-time:
Total:
Undergraduate Graduate
8,054 1,667
928 2,591
8,982 4,258
Headcount Grand Total - 13,240
F.T.E. Student Enrollment Total: 11,419
‘F.T.E. Teaching Faculty: 810 ‘
F.T.E. Professional and Non-Professional
Staff 2,466
Summary of Degrees Conferred 1969 - 1970
College of Arts and Sciences:
Bachelors 1,046 Masters 183 Doctorates 18
School of Business:
Bachelors 285 Masters 53
School of Criminal Justice:
Masters 12
School of Education:
Masters 295 Doctorates 25
School of Library Science:
Masters 131
School of Nursing: (none)
School of Public Affairs:
Bachelors 35 Masters 60 Doctorates 6
School of Social Welfare:
Masters 34
Totals 1,366 768 49
Library: Number volumes: 656,905
(Fall 1970) Number periodicals: 7,600
Seating capacity: 2,000
Number professional librarians: 67
Expenditures for books and
periodicals:
1968-69 $681,333
1969-70 $609 ,913
1970-71 $868,523
SUNYA Budget (1970-71):
Campus Total 35,484,711
Instruction & Dept. ‘Research 17,866,177
Organized Activities 788,337
Organized Research 730,164
Extension & Public Service | 230,990
Libraries 2,471,745
Student Services 1,960,871
Maintenance & Plant Operation 4,037,568
General Administration 1,449,457
General Institutional Services 1,034,504
Residence Halls 2,388,221 é
Student Aid 328,677 (
Food Service (self supporting) 3,009,000
Overtime Compensation 67,000
Inconvenience Pay 47,000
Less Regular Savings -925,000
PREFACE
The following statement appears in the report made by a team repre-
senting the Middle States Association of Colleges and Secondary Schools
which visited the Albany campus in the spring of 1961:
"A brief statement about the plans of the
College for the years ahead may be important
here. It appears relatively clear that the
College has aspirations to become a multi-
purpose institution which will expand not only
its undergraduate program but also its graduate
program with the eventual development of pro-
grams of doctoral study in a number of academic
and professional fields. It is important, with
such worthy objectives in mind, to recognize that
the achievement of these new programs is indeed
difficult and will not occur easily even if ade-
quate financial support and suitable physical
facilities are provided. The real strength of
such programs lies in the faculty and the
curricular offerings. Efforts spent now to
develop a strong teaching and research faculty,
and the kinds of curricula that provide a strong
foundation for graduate and professional study
will be most worthwhile in terms of future divi-
dends. Albany is a good institution that has
made real progress in the direction of excellence.
With the combined efforts of the faculty and ad-
‘ ministration directed toward these goals of ex-
cellence, the College can look forward to even
greater achievement."
‘
The presentation which follows is designed to show how the State
University of New York at Albany during the intervening decade has achieved
the "aspirations" mentioned in the report and has endeavored to fulfill the
challenges raised in the statement. At the same time, an entire new range
of problems, issues, and questions are discussed, and constitute a new
challenge to the University as it enters the 1970's.
Following an introductory section which includes a general description
of the University and a statement outlining its avowed purposes, the report
is offered in three sections:
Section I -- External Relations refers first to the framework within
which the University operates, including those relationships determined
by the State of New York through its educational structure and the Board
of Trustees of the State University of New York of which this University
Center is an integrated unit. Special references are made to the controls
that such a structure imposes and to the autonomy that this University
enjoys within these limitations.
Section II. -- Internal Operations endeavors to articulate the ways in
which the University is fulfilling its avowed purposes. Reference is made
to the pattern of governance under which the University operates and the
administrative structure developed to carry out its functions. An analysis
is made of its academic programs, its student life, its research and service
functions, its relationship to the community, its facilities planning and
its budgeting policies and procedures.
Section III -- The Humanities offers a study in depth of one Division
in the College of Arts and Sciences, providing some materials for an evalua-
tion of its condition and for an understanding of the problems it faces.
Selected handbooks and bulletins accompany this self-study, and addi-
tional documents and reports will be made available to the team when it
arrives on campus.
In late 1969 Acting President Allan A. Kuusisto appointed a Steering
Committee to undertake the organization of our self-study and the arrange-
ments for the visitation of a team in early 1971. In a meeting with the
then Executive Secretary of the Commission on Higher Education, S. Taylor
Jones, Dr. Kuusisto and the Steering Committee agreed on the areas to be
studied, namely, the external relations of this institution, particularly
with reference to the entire State University system, the administrative
organization of SUNYA, and one major aspect of our academic program, the
Division of the Humanities. Two committees were then established to handle
each aspect of this work. They met frequently, shared in the preparation
of a draft for major sections of documents, had certain other responsible
officers of the university prepare other portions, made substantial use of
the statistical records of the institution, and circulated a number of drafts
of the sections of their reports and their entire reports to faculty members,
administrators and students with the request that comments be made. Almost
200 copies of the final Draft of the self-study were circulated on the campus
in an effort to involve a broad range of campus constituencies in what was
felt to be the most important part of the evaluation itself. Final versions
of the self-study were, then, based upon the drafts and comments made there-
on. The final "press run" of the self-study numbers some 300 copies so that,
once again, as many people as possible will be able to share in the materials.
A substantial number of copies will be placed on reserve in the Library.
4a
Members of the Middle States Self-study Committees -
The Committee on All-university Questions - Section I and II
Dean John Farley, Chairman
Dr. J. Fredericks Volkwein, Sec.
Professor James Corbett
Dr. Sorrell Chesin
Professor Lewis Welch
Professor John Slocum
Mr. Dwight Smith
Professor Seth Spellman
Professor Robert Creegan
Mr. David Owen - 8 Thurlow Terrace
Members of the Committee on the Humanities - Section III ‘
Professor Frederick Beharriell, Chairman
Professor Edward Jennings, Sec.
Dean Charles Colman
Dr. William Clarkin
Professor William Reese
Professor Ruth Schmidt
Professor William Fenton
Professor Mary Goggin
Professor Douglas Alexander
Piufessus Donald Mochon
Professor Jerome Hanley
Professor Francine Frank
Professor K. Drew Hartzell, Jr.
Members of the Steering Committee -
resident Louis T. Benezet, Chairman
Acting Vice President Charles T. O'Reilly
Professor Edgar B. Schick
Professor Paul Buiger
Dean Edgar Flinton
Dean Robert Morris
Mr. Dwight Smith
INTRODUCTION
The evolution of all American universities, and the American public
university in particular, can be traced to three origins: the early British
"Oxbridge" tradition of a University committed to the training of an educated
elite to serve the empire in governmental and professional capacities; the
early German model of a "community of scholars" committed to the search for
truth free from political interference; and the early American "Land Grant"
college influence which broadened admissions and curricula to include more
professional and occupational opportunities, to diversify research, and to
emphasize public service as a necessary and sometimes structured obligation
of a university.
The State University drew from such origins in its Master Plan and
applied them in the context of an interlocking multi-campus of public higher
education, consisting of community two-year colleges, two-year agricultural
and technical colleges, four-year liberal arts and comprehensive four-year
institutions, general campus complexes offering the full range of undergrad-
uate and graduate opportunities, and specialized statutory institutions.
Purposes!
Inherent in the Board of Trustees mandate in establishing the University
Center at Albany is the premise that the institution create its own identity:
an identity reflecting the commitment to excellence and unity of purpose which
underline the structure of the entire State University system. Much has been
accomplished toward the achievement of this goal in a relatively short period
of time, and in the face of many adversities, what was essentially a single-
purpose teacher training institution has been transformed into a highly-regarded
university.
Footnote 1: Much of the discussion in this section is borrowed from the
SUNYA Campus Academic Plan, 1968.
The course which the University Center at Albany has charted for its
development is a search for excellence in its faculty, students, and adminis-
tration and in its complex but inter-related teaching, research service, and.-.
certification functions. This uncompromising search for excellence is an ob-
ligation which the institution owes not only to the members of the university
community, but to all those outside who look to the university for intellectual
and moral leadership.
In developing the plans for the immediate and future growth of the Albany
Center, utmost caution has been taken against the creation of an institution
which is monastic or reflects the ivory tower, somewhat separated and detached
from society and from the existential world of human affairs. We have also
tried to prevent the university from evolving into an institution in which
students are gradually socialized into middle class status by faculty members
acting as caretakers in loco parentis. What is envisioned is an institutional
framework which acknowledges not only the need for cultivating and protecting
freedom of inquiry ‘and expression and the provision of optimal educational
opportunities for its students, but one which realistically relates to the
problems and complexities of contemporary society.
Traditionally, institutions of higher learning have regarded the impart-
ing of existing knowledge as the most basic of their functions, and Albany's
historical strength has been the quality of its teaching. This function re-
mains an essential part of the’ total education process, but the mere passing on
of known materials from one generation to another is no longer considered ade-
quate, The bewildering complexity of our contemporary society and its attendant
problems has forced those involved in higher education to develop new and diff-
erent processes for educating their students. In the broadest possible terms,
universities today consider as their basic function and obligation, the prepar-
tion of the student as best they can to meet an unknown future. The student
is involved in the process of inquiry rather than being the passive recipient
of established knowledge.
The University Center at Albany is firmly committed to the task of
creating an environment in which emphasis will be placed on the growth of the
student as a total human being. This necessitates greater concern with the
relevance of knowledge, the student's personal values, social values, emotional
Maturity, as well as the growth of intellectual skills. Greater emphasis must
also be placed on the need to develop in the student habits and skills for ac-
quiring new knowledge and in confronting a world of accelerating change. The
acknowledgement of this purpose and commitment has been the thrust underlying
significant changes id’ undergraduate education at SUNYA during the past decade.
The structuring of an appropriate atmosphere for contemplation to facili-
tate search for new knowledge and values, as well as the integration and appli-
cation of the new and the old, occupies a pre-eminent place in this institution's
development plans. In emphasizing the importance of this academic function, the
faculty and administration of the Albany campus have acknowledged the special
responsibility thrust upon them by contemporary society.
The University Center at Albany has begun to translate this responsibility
into action by developing plans for a major expansion of research activities.
Some of the research will be accommodated by the academic departments, but a
good share of it will be planned within a broader framework with emphasis
placed on interdisciplinary as well as inter-campus cooperation. Excellence
in graduate education is dependent on this vital academic function.
There is increasing recognition of the necessity for greater emphasis
on the public service function of the university. The rapid and momentous
changes complicating our social order and the resultant awareness of the
confusion and inadequacy of existing knowledge has caused contemporary society
to look more and more to institutions of higher learning for intellectual sup-
port. This dependence is manifested in virtually every aspect of life. Busi- |
ness and industry, the military, schools, governments, and even the church and
the mass media come to universities for trained personnel and for ideas and
knowledge. It is incumbent upon us, therefore, to ascertain those public ser-
vice activities most appropriate for the University and to commit its energy
and resources to service this obligation. -_
As the University assumes more responsibilities and functions, there will
be a correspondingly greater need for faculty members. The search for such
manpower is a continuous process and each succeeding year has seen more out-
standing scholars and young faculty with high potential joining the Albany
faculty. These new additions to the faculty have been selected on the basis
of proven scholarship, excellence in teaching, and a commitment to public
service. Retention of these faculty and the provision of greater opportun-
ities for development occupies a prominent place in the institution's devel-
opment plans.
Historical Development
Founded in 1844 as the New York State Normal School at Albany and desig-
nated the New York State Normal College in 1889, the University at Albany has
long been recognized as an important center for the preparation of teachers
for the schools of the state. os
In 1905 the Board of Regents made a series of very important decisions in
determining the future of the institution. They asked that all courses of
study designed to prepare teachers for the elementary schools be discontinued,
that admissions requirements be substantially the same as those of other eastern
colleges of good standing, and specified that all students ". . . be required
to pursue such subjects of study as are deemed essential to a liberal educa-
tion."
In the same year, 1905, Albany was authorized to award the degrees of
Bachelor of Arts and Bachelor of Science, and for several decades was the
only public State college in New York that was extended this privilege.
Graduates receiving either of these acytees have had a sound liberal arts
background as well as the additional professional preparation nécessary for
teaching.
The College endeavored to prepare, first, a liberally educated person
and, second, a professionally competent teacher. As the title page of the
report of the June 1961 visiting team from Middle States Association states,
the College was always dedicated to the idea that ".. . the best teacher
is a liberally educated person who is thoroughly competent in his subject
matter and also in the principles and practices of his profession."
Unlike other teachers' colleges, Albany restricted its program to the
preparation of those planning to teach the academic subjects offered in the
secondary schools. Each candidate for the degree was required to have a strong
general background in the liberal arts and to study one or two fields in depth.
It should be noted that this distinctive combination of teacher prepara-
tion based upon enriching study in the liberal arts is especially significant,
both because it ensured continuation of the tradition of excellence in the
preparation of teachers, and because it provided the strong, extensive frame-
work that has made possible the recent rapid expansion of the College of Arts
and Sciences.
Although historically and temperamentally the State University of New
York at Albany has been a liberal arts college for those preparing to teach,
the major shift from a college primarily for the undergraduate preparation
of teachers to the currently developing multi-purpose University Center, has
been both recent and rapid.
Reflecting this change on the undergraduate level, in September 1961 the
University enrolled its first undergraduate upperclass students in a liberal
arts program which did not include any study in professional education. In
September, 1963, the liberal arts program, known as the General Program, be-
came available to students entering the University directly from high school.
Since then undergraduates have been identified with either the Teacher Educa-
tion Program or the General Program.
Table I
Comparison of Selected Institutional Statistics
1960 versus 1970
1960 1970
Teaching Faculty 180 800
Student Enrollment 3,000 13,400
Library Holdings 65,000 650,000
Courses Offered 500 2,000
Academic Departments 17 50
Degrees Awarded Bachelor's 472 1,366
Master's 245 770
Doctoral 0 49
In 1962 it became State University of New York at Albany. Today, among
the nearly 70 units of SUNY, it is one of the four such university centers,
the others being at Buffalo (formerly the University of Buffalo), at Binghamton
(formerly Harpur College), and at Stony Brook.
From the early years through the mid-1940's, growth in the number and
variety of academic programs and courses, number of faculty, and number of
enrolled students, showed significant change. Following World War II, however,
an increasing acceleration of growth began to appear in both the physical and
the academic dimensions of the University.
Reflected in the figures above is the fact that from a single purpose,
primarily undergraduate institution at the beginning of the decade, the State
University at Albany in 1970 has undergone major changes in size, in function
and in organization.
Prior to viorld Wax II the New York State College for Teachers at Albany
had a steady enrollment of about 1,200 undergraduates and 100-200 graduate
students. Today, SUNY at Albany has about 9,000 undergraduates and 4,000
graduate students. The professional staff numbers approximately 1,200,
800 of whom are teaching faculty. |
Library holdings have grown from 65,000 volumes in 1960 to over 650,000
in 1970. In 1960 the library received 480 periodicals, a a it receives
over 7,600 in 1970. | Oe
The rapid improvement in faculty salary may best be indicated by refer-
ence to the AAUP reports for this institution. From 1963-1964 1969-1970
the average compensation of full-time faculty by rank changed as follows:
Average Coipensation Grade for Full-Time Faculty
1963-64 1967-68 1969-70
Professor Cc . 2B cd A
Associate Professor’ Cc A AA
Assistant Professor -C A +, AA
Instructor °' B BA AA
Like most complex Universities, the institution offers a wide variety of
academic programs and professional studies. Albany consists currently of
eight degree-granting schools and colleges. They are the College of Arts and
Sciences, the Graduate School of Public Affairs, the School of Business, and
-12-
the School of Education, which offer undergraduate and graduate programs; the
School of Criminal Justice, the School of Library Science, and the School of
Social Welfare, which offer graduate programs only; and the School of Nursing
which currently offers undergraduate programs.
I. EXTERNAL RELATIONS
A. General Introduction
Until 1948, New York contained no public Universities of the sort which
characterized many other states. While Cornall was one of the first "land grant"
colleges to be established, it remained essentially a private university so that
in a real sense the State University of New York is a "new-born giant," and its
rapid growth and large size have contributed to a share of the operational prob-
lems and adjustments discussed in this report.
The Committee on Higher Education appointed jointly by the Governor and
the Regents, in its 1960 study described the state machinery for the control
and operation of higher educations as "one of the most complex in the whole
country." Yet underlying this complex and often confusing legal and adminis-
trative structure are certain fundamentally sound principles and patterns of
organization. Although these are not always clearly perceived, they are
nevertheless a source of strength in New York State education.
Constitutional as well as statutory authority over all educational
matters in the State are possessed by the Regents of the University of the
Stateof New York (not to be confused with the State University of New York).
The University of the State of New York comprises the entire educational
System in New York State from nursery school to graduate school, public and
private. The University of the State of New York is governed and all of its
corporate powers are exercised by the State Board of Regents, a body of 15
laymen elected by the Legislature for terms of 15 years. The Regents-appointed
executive officer and professional head of the University is the State Com-
missioner of Education, who also holds the title of President of the University
of the State of New York. The State Education Department is the executive agency
for the Regents and the Commissioner.! The Regents are vested with the responsi-
bility of determining the "educational policies" of the State, consistent with
the Constitution and statutes, and are authorized to establish rules carrying
into effect the laws and policies of the State relating to education. They
are directed by law "to encourage and promote education, to visit and inspect
its several institutions and departments, to distribute to or expand or adminis-
ter for them such property and funds as the State may appropriate therefor or as
the University may own or hold in trust or otherwise, and to perform such other
duties as may be entrusted to it."
ithe Regents and the Commissioner of Education are authorized to inspect and
require reports from any institutions in the University. The Regents may
suspend or revoke the charter or any of the rights and privileges of any insti-
tution which fails to make any required reports or violates any law or any rule
of the Regents.
In addition to their broad coordinating and supervisory roles for all of edu-
cation in the State, the Regents have certain specific responsibilities for
higher education. The most recent is the promulgation and revision of the
Regents Plan for the expansion and development of higher education in the
State. Others are: chartering institutions; approving curriculum leading to
all degrees at all levels; certifying teachers; examining, licensing and en-
forcing laws regarding conduct of twenty professions; administering the under-
graduate scholarship, graduate fellowship, and Scholar Incentive programs; and
encouraging improvement and innovation in instruction and college administra-
tion. As the State Commission for Higher Education Facilities Act of 1963
and for the Vocational Education Act of 1963, the Board of Regents also carries
responsibilities for the administration of certain statewide Federal programs
bringing Federal aid to higher education, both private and public.
The four major segments of higher education in the University of the State (
of New York are: the State University of New York, the City University of New
York, the Community Colleges operating within the program of the State Univers-
ity of New York, and the privately-controlled colleges and universities.
The State University of New York is controlled by a Board of Trustees
appointed by the Governor and confirmed by the State Senate. The 15 members
serve uncompensated ten year terms. With the exception of the submission of
a long-range plan and periodic revision, the Board of Trustees of the State
University is related to the Regents in the same way as are the Boards of Con-
trol of all the private institutions of higher education in the State. The
SUNY Chancellor and Central Administration are the executive and administrative
arm of the Board of Trustees.
Historically, there is evidence suggesting that the Board of Trustees was
established with relative autonomy in order to protect the State University.
There have been political and legal tensions between the University of the
State of New York and State University of New York which are not within the
purview of this report; but it should be noted that SUNY Albany exists within
both of these two systems and some of its external strengths and weaknesses
are a result. The existing organizational tension had been a definite factor
behind the existence of strong control centralized in the Board of Trustees
and the SUNY Central Administration. In the past years there has been a fear
that autonomous campuses might be more vulnerable to political attack. It
should be noted in this connection that the University has thrived in a stable
and favorable political environment during the decade since the last Middle
States Visitation.
Being part of the State University, the campus has many advantages and
great resources are available to it. Because of the relative strengthd the (
Board of Trustees and the SUNY Chancellor, however, a question can be raised
about the authority left to the campus chief administrative officer and to the
University Council. It is clear that the President and the SUNYA Council do
not have as much authority to make "final" decisions as do their counterparts
at private universities.
B. Central Administration
Since SUNY Albany operates within the framework of the State University,
the Central Administration is the most important part of SUNYA's external
environment. The Central Administration acts as an organization channel between
SUNYA and other State agencies and organizations. This structure, of course,
has advantages and disadvantages. For while disagreement and tension arises,
it is for the most part creative tension which improves the quality and pre-
cision of the requests and proposals under negotiation. The evidence is that
this campus has a good professional relationship with the Central Administra-
tion which does a good job of representing us to other state agencies and offices.
The administrative reorganization and turnover in the Central Administration
has sometimes made it difficult to find the right channels of communication and
decision-making. As this report is written some major positions in the Central
Office are either vacant or their occupants are on leave.
In addition, there is local interest in more structured contact between
the Central Administration and major operating offices on campus. Formal con-
sultation and feedback particularly in ‘advance of the promulgation of certain
policies is helpful.
C. Academic Development
The primary guides for academic development are the SUNY Master Plan, re-
vised every four years by the Board of Trustees, and Campus Academic Plan sub-
mitted by each campus to the Central Staff. These plans guide academic devel- (
opment and set priorities for a five to ten year period. The projections and
plans are essentially academic "targets" to guide the various canpuses in their
growth. The plans are sometimes misunderstood by some faculty and department
chairmen who believe that funding for personnel and facilities are practically
guaranteed by the existence of the plans. To be sure, the plans do have impli-
cations for construction and operating budgets because of the enrollment and
program goals; but the plans are largely dependent upon the Governor's budget
and Legislative appropriations for their implimentation. The SUNY Master plan of
1968 was submitted by the Chancellor on behalf of the Board of Trustees to the
Governor and the Board of Regents. However, for two years the Plan was not
formally accepted by the Governor.
With each passing year, the discrepancies between the Master Plan goals
and the actual situation on SUNY campuses is widening and many expectations are
not met. SUNY Albany, however, has thus far done rather well in meeting its
enrollment and progeam goals, but it may find it difficult to continue to do so
since the present facilities are jammed to capacity and the next stage of con-
struction has not even begun.
The Central Administration shares leadership for academic development with
the campus. In coordiantion with the State Education Department, the Chancellor's
Staff mediates between public and private interests in higher education and
coordinates academic develupaient among the .campuses of the system. Such planning
has kept to a minimum the costly competition and empire building which naturally
arises among the various campuses. In addition, the Central Administration has
responded well to perceived State needs by promoting the establishment of appropri-
ate programs. The circumstances surrounding the establishment of the Schools of (
Criminal Justice, Nursing, and Public Affairs on this campus are examples.
However, initiative also rests with the local campuses. By contributing
to the Master Plan through the Campus Academic Plan, each campus outlines the
areas it wishes to develop. In addition, academic programs not in the plans can
be established with appropriate rational justification. At Albany the Educational
Opportunities Program, and the programs in Afro-American and Judaic Studies were
proposed, approved, and funded without appearing in the plans.
Perhaps the most difficult academic problem of an external nature concerns
the criteria of "success". The academic purposes and ideals discussed earlier
are not quantifiable and their fulfillment can be only measured subjectively.
Yet the State's system of accounting and padgeting requires that most justifications
and criteria of academic success be reduced to statistical presentation. At times
this has the effect of goal displacement: attention is focused upon statistics
(like the faculty-student ratio) instead of on the quality of the educational
enterprise. This is a dilemma facing all Universities and is not a greater
problem on this campus than it is on others. Nevertheless, there is need to
develop better criteria for evaluating academic programs and academic institutions
than those currently used in New York State. The study of organizational behavior
suggests that whatever is used as a criterion becomes the organizational goal.
D. Planning and Enrollment
The 1968 Master Plan was divided into two sections: an academic master plan,
in which forecasts of programs of study were laid out; and a development plan,
in which forecasts of enrollment were presented and compared (in a broad way) with
master plan goals.
Each years's budget has been based in the first instance on review of the
development plan goals in relation to most recent experiences. Since the enrol-
iment estimates underlie the faculty-student ratio; since support costs in instruc-
tional programs are determined as a factor of total faculty; and since instruction
- 18 -
and departmental research represent a majority of all appropriations support,
it is fair to say that the enrollment estimates of the development plan lie at
the heart of the annual budget process.
The enrollment estimates for the State University as a whole were developed
through joint consultation between the Central Staff and the State Education
Department. Within the agreed-upon totals for the State University system, each
campus was asked to project its own enrollment. The campus estimates were ag-
gregated, and adjustments were made, as needed, to fit the predetermined total
(for SUNY-Albany, the adjustments in 1968 were minimal) . The campuses later
were asked to refine the estimates even further, to produce enrollment projections
by major teaching area and by level of instruction.
The same process was followed during 1970, as a prelude to the 1972 Master
Plan document. At this time, enrollment projections were made ona year-to-year
basis to 1980, with additional projections added for 1985.
The mechanics of the process (particularly as they have related to campus—
central staff relationships) have worked reasonably well. The system does
introduce problems, however. A major one has to do with interpretation of the
projections as firm commitments, not to be modified at the campus level.
E. Financial and Personnel Management
1. General policy
It is the policy of this University to initiate and promote approved academic
and related programs for its students by obtaining the necessary funds from all
possible sources and managing such funds. This University, as one component of
a large public higher education state-wide system, exercises its fiscal responsi-
bilities within certain ground rules fixed by:
a. Policies and regulations as established by the Board of Trustees and
interpreted by the SUNY Central Administration.
The New York State Division of Budget which reviews and recommends
our budget annually and has final authority in allocating funds for
operating and capital construction programs.
The New York State Legislature which appropriates operating and capital
funds, establishes program direction accordingly, and audits performance
to assess that legislative intent was recognized.
The State Comptroller's office which has pre-audit and post-audit
accounting responsibilities.
The Department of Civil Service which classifies and administers the
salary plan for many of our employees in cooperation with the Division
of the Budget.
Faculty and professional staff classifications, and salary programs as
administered by the Central Office of the State University of New York
and the Division of the Budget.
The Office of General Services which administers universal purchasing
and contractual arrangements for supplies, equipment, and related
services.
The Department of Audit and Control, SUNY Central Office, and the
Department of Law which review and either approve or disapprove of
contracts, primarily of a service or rental (leasing) nature.
In addition, this University must also abide by the legal requirements,
rules and regulations of other funding authorities and agencies.
Fiscal Management
It was noted earlier that the campus enjoys substantial discretion and
control over its academic program. This is also true, for example, in regard
to personnel decisions, on promotion, tenure, and contract renewal. However,
the University has been given great financial resources by the State. Certain
controls and constraints, however, accompany these resources and it is this area
of fiscal management that requires major responsiveness and adaptation to the
external environment.
Definite limitations and conditions are set by the State Government. For
example, while the campus participates in the setting of priorities for new
construction, once funds are designated for one construction purpose they cannot
be used for some other type of construction, much less converted into operating
expenditures. Even though SUNYA participates in the planning of student enrol-
lment "mix" it has little control over the total enrollment figures in the master
plan since these are derived largely from the needs of the State. To use a third
example, in the last two years less than 1/6 of the increase in salary funds could
be allocated at the discretion of the campus. The larger portion was allocated
according to legislative mandated formulas. Moreover, the State Director of the
Budget has legal responsibilities for approving every new position and exercises
some responsibility for certain salaries. In order to establish a new position,
then, the campus must receive the approval of both the Central Administration and
the Division of the Budget, even though the funds have been voted and approved.
Another necessary adaptation has been the meshing of the State's fiscal
year with the University's calendar and operations. Currently the State Legisla-
ture meets early in the year to consider the budget for the fiscal year beginning
April lst. Since most faculty are commonly recruited and commitments are made
during the winter months for the following September, accurate personnel planning
is difficult. The situation becomes even more difficult in those years where
budget controversies have carried the date for Legislative approval beyond April l,
throwing the State into financial limbo for periods ranging up to two months
during the 1960's. Since there is a six to eight week lag between the State
Legislature's approval of the budget and notification to the local campus of new
positions, and a 4 to 5 month lag between such approval and the establishing of
new positions on the State's payroll Certificate, salary and personnel decisions
are unduly extended procedures. The concept of a two-year budget for SUNY should
be seriously considered.
an,
These external constraints exist, of course, because the University must
by law conform to the same requirements imposed on all State administrative
agencies. The necessary adaptation to these civranghances’ does not seriously
hamper the educational enterprise, but it does mean that manpower and energy
must be committed to the handling of detailed requirements and that the University
is deprived of some flexibility and responsiveness in meeting its educational
mission.
3. Administrative Salary Plan (ASP) for Non-Teaching Professional Staff
For many years faculty and civil service salaries have been upgraded
at a significantly faster rate than administrative salaries, and there is
a general concern that administrative salaries are too low. The Booz, Allen
and Hamilton administrative salary study was undertaken by SUNY to investigate
the situation and make recommendations. However, there is considerable local
unhappiness with the final ASP as approved by the Central Administration and
Division of the Budget.
Some at Albany feel that the administrative salary structure should be
related to the faculty structure and provide pay ranges equivalent to annualized
faculty salaries at comparable levels. Booz, Allen and Hamilton has been rehired
by the Central Administration to investigate the problem and make recommendations.
4. Professional Collective Bargaining
The New York State Taylor Law has provided a means whereby faculty and
professional staff can organize and negotiate through their representative
organization regarding conditions of employment. Recent court action has
determined that the faculty and professional staff is one state-wide unit for
the purpose of collective bargaining. Several contending groups hope to become
the recognized or certified agent for the teaching and non-teaching professional
,
staff. The resolution of this matter will strongly affect our modes of admin- ¢
istrative organization, our channels of communication, and our interpersonal
relationships when contracts come into full force. It is also possible that
collective bargaining will come into conflict with an expressed campus need
for a greater amount of discretionary salary funds. |
F. SUNY Senate
SUNYA relates to the state-wide SUNY Faculty Senate through three Senators
elected by the Faculty. Thus the SUNY Senate does not relate directly to the
SUNYA Senate (or the Senates of the other many units of the state-wide University).
However, on the SUNYA campus, the SUNY Senators serve ex officio as members of
the SUNYA University Senate and its Executive Committee.
It is only through their representatives that Albany faculty can directly
affect the governance of SUNY. There is no great flow of subjects and proposals
from SUNYA to the SUNY Senate. However, the channel is available, and the
Senators from Albany have brought up those items that were raised on the local
campus.
A further relationship does exist through the appointment of members of
the SUNYA faculty to various committees of the SUNY Senate. Each Senator is on
a committee, and an additional 12 members of the SUNYA faculty and professional
staff serve on as many committees. The membership on the SUNY Senate executive
committee rotates among representatives of various types of units; since there
are but four University Centers, SUNYA has once again its senior Senator serving
in that post..
In the past, the SUNY Senate has provided a very good opportunity for
exchange of views among the Senators and the Central Administration. The
Chancellor has made it a point to attend the Senate meetings specifically (
addressing himself to the resolutions and requests presented to and voted by
the prior Senate meetings. Much of what SUNY Senate proposes does get imple-
mented.
While necessarily much attention of the SUNY Senate this past two years
has been devoted to issues raised by the Taylor Law, there remains hope that
these issues may be resolved during 1970-1971.
G. University Council
The councils of each campus of the State University are established under
Section 356 of the New York State Education Law. At SUNYA nine members,
including the chairman, are appointed by the governor and generally represent
broad geographical coverage of the area surrounding the institution, as well as
broad representation from business, industry, and the professions. An alumna
of the institution serves as a member of the council.
By law, councils are subject to the general supervision of the Board of
Trustees, and exercise powers in:
1. recommending candidates as head of an institution
2. reviewing and recommending major plans for the institution
3. making regulations governing care, custody and management of lands,
grounds, buildings and equipment
4. reviewing and recommending proposed budgets
5. developing citizens' advisory committees
6. naming buildings and grounds
7. making regulations governing the conduct and behavior of students
8. prescribing and exercising supervision over student housing and safety
9. preparing an annual report to the trustees and reporting otherwise as
needed
10. performing other duties as required and making regulations not incon-
sistent with the law or trustees regulations
- 24 -
Over the years the Council at Albany has devoted its efforts most par-
ticularly to reviewing and acting upon areas dealing with student life,
housing, and safety. In the recent change of president of the University,
the Council took a leadership role in the Search and selection.
During the past three years the Council has become more generally active,
increasing the frequency of its meetings from quarterly to monthly during the
academic year. While academic, financial and research matters are discussed,
student affairs appear to be the primary focus of Council action.
Having more frequent contact with the University and more regular and
thorough information by mail and phone has made members of the council more
valuable. The experience and judgment brought by members involved in law,
medicine, business, and industry provide a vital sounding board for the
university administration.
Their influence in the community can be most helpful as the university
moves forward.
H. Alumni
The 1960 Middle States Self-Study contains the following statement:
"In the organization of the College...the major weakness is the lack
of a role for the alumni. Alumni representation on the Board of
Trustees, alumni voting upon proposed members of the Board of Trustees,
and the value of making an alumni association an integral part of the
College, should be studied."
While the statement is in part applicable to 1970, the subject has been
studied, and efforts to organize and secure support of alumni are now beginning.
Alumni Affairs has been a full-time office of the University only since 1966,
and during the past four years the University has increased its support of the
Alumni Affairs program and significant gains have been realized. The address
listing of known alumni has increased from 2,000 to 17,500 and the program,
in general, has improved in both size and quality. It is still necessary
for the University to increase the information flow, the services, and the
University contact for alumni.
State University budgeting currently does not support Alumni Affairs
operations, but the experience of other major public universities would
indicate that University funding of Alumni Affairs programs returns, in
the long run, significant political and financial support. All‘indications
at SUNYA point to a loyal group of Alumni who can be a great resource to the
University.
Funding for Alumni Affairs is complex. Reflecting its ambiguous status,
the program is funded by four sources. Plans are underway to clarify the funding
and to undertake an annual Alumni fund-raising campaign. Increased attention
and service should now begin to return the Alumni's personal and financial
support for the University.
I. Community Relations
In its external relations, SUNYA's location in the state capital is worth
noting. In theory our communication with those in the Central Administration,
Division of Budget, State Education Department, etc., should be the best in the
SUNY system. In practice it has not always worked out that way, but relations
are on the whole quite good. Campus officials interact both formally and in-
formally with many officials in SUNY and State agencies and offices, and mutual
associations developed through community service projects, professional activities,
and social gatherings are a definite asset to the institution as it grows. It
is also true, however, that SUNYA is highly visible. When SUNYA faculty and
administrators make critical public statements (e.g., against the war, against
SUNY budget cuts) and when SUNYA students demonstrate or protest, there is some-
times a negative impact upon the community. The disruptions of last spring
(see Section II.D.) did not improve our relations with the State Legislature,
and many on this campus have become aware that we necessarily take risks by
public statements and actions.
It is impossible to summarize in exact terms either the guality or quantity
of community service involvements of SUNYA students, faculty, and staff. Many
participate as individuals--and not as "representatives" of the University.
Most do so out of motivation of conscience rather than the need for publicity;
therefore, many important contributions to the community receive no notice
whatsoever. Over the past four years we have made conscientious efforts in
the direction of filing newspaper clippings, summaries of conversations, and
incidental references to "positive" activities of our university students.
Even so, our records are incomplete, and they indicate only representative
examples of community service ventures. The following items are samples
of organized community service activities:
1. Four "Blood drives" are held each year (three by students, one by the
staff and faculty). The Blood Bank of the Albany Area Chapter, American Red
Cross is the recipient of well over 1000 pints of blood each year.
2. The Campus Chest drive, a major fund-raising project for the University
community raises more than a thousand dollars each year.
3. State Fair is the annual fund-raising drive for the objective of sponsoring
a foreign exchange student on our campus. Student groups, student organizations,
fraternities and sororities, and members of the faculty operate booths on a
"fair" or "carnival" theme. Income has ranged up to $3,000.
4. Interact, an organization designed to increase communication between individuals
on the University campus, reported the support of a foster child program which
had been the previous responsibility of the Albany Student Press. The Interact
group raised $260.
- 27 -
5. Kappa Beta fraternity carried out a recruitment drive for the Big Brothers
of Albany County, Inc. and raised $125 by sponsoring a social mixer at the
University. Members of the Edward Eldred Potter Club assisted this organization
by sponsoring a sports clinic and recreation program throughout the year and
donating their time to young men.
6. Kappa Beta fraternity holds an annual clothing drive. Over 100 pairs of
shoes, 1,300 articles of adult clothing, and 400 children's articles were
collected last year for the disadvantaged and donated to the Trinity Institute.
7. The Interfraternity Council and the Intersorority Council collected $800
for the American Cancer Society by distributing collection packets throughout
the Albany City area.
8. There are numerous instances of ghetto children being campus. guests of
students and faculty. St. Catherine's Infant Home and St. Colman's Home for
orphaned children have close ties with our University students.
9. Ten students from the Newman Club spent a Spring recess in Appalachia doing
social work and project research. Students also worked on the Arbor Hill
(Downtown Albany) housing survey over vacation periods.
10. The various political action groups have served to break down barriers
between the University and tri-city area residents. Although there are
negative aspects, there is evidence the University students and faculty are
popular speakers in the area (secondary school assembly programs, Parent-
Teacher Associations, workshops, seminars, classes, civic and social groups,
and other colleges and universities).
ll. Among other miscellaneous projects: social and recreational activities
at the Veterans Administration Hospital and fund-raising for Leukemia, Hopi
Indians, foster child in Formosa, March of Dimes, Mental Health, and Biafran
relief--to name but a few.
An estimated 350 university students this summer are taking advantage
of an opportunity to receive academic credit for community involvment.
Guidelines approved by the faculty in September allow students to earn from
one to 15 credits for independent study or "special projects involving com-
munity activity and collateral study”.
Students interested in becoming involved in the community work primarily
through the university Office of Innovative and Developmental Programs. There
they are put in touch with one of 53 participating agencies, with whom they
arrange the kind of work they will be doing and the hours they will available.
The amount of academic credit given depends on the amount of time devoted to a
- 28 -
project and the nature of the activity.
Students currently are involved in such areas as tutoring neighborhood
youngsters, working with members of the Albany Association of the Blind,
giving assistance at the Albany Medical Center, and doing research on legal
problems. The participating agencies encompass a wide range of social concerns
such as youth groups, agencies for the sick and handicapped, organizations
devoted to neighborhood improvement, church. affiliates, and associations such
as the Consumers Complaint Bureau and the League of Women Voters. 7
It is much more difficult to discuss the community involvements of faculty
and staff. Large numbers of faculty and staff reside in the suburbs, where
there is some separation between one's University life and one's suburban com-
munity life. We find University faculty and staff giving service in the fol-
lowing ways:
...serving on Boards of Directors (United Fund, Cancer Society, Red Cross,
YMCA, Heart Fund, Albany Home for Children, Child Guidance Center,
Albany Symphony, Albany Institute of History and Art, Girl Scouts, Boy
Scouts, and the like);
...serving their local churches and synogogues;
...serving as volunteers (groups mentioned above, plus the fund-raising
projects thus associated, and in such ventures as Refer Switchboard--
a drug and social problems referral agency and 24-hour, seven days per
week "switchboard") ;
...serving as Big Brother and Big Sisters, and
...serving as host families for international students.
Steady contact with all gogments of the news media has been maintained.
More than 800 news releases and a quarterly newsletter were produced during the
year to bring the university's view of events clearly before the public. On
Campus, a weekly paper is produced and distributed to the whole campus.
As part of the university's effort to establish and maintain clear lines
of communication with important members of the State and regional community,
legislators from the area were invited individually to a series of luncheons
am,
during the year. In cooperation with the SUNYA Foundation, a series of evening
dinners, to which important community leaders were invited, was given by the
President in honor of distinguished members of the faculty.
Speakers have been provided for community groups and arrangements have been
made for the use of university facilities by community organizations and agencies.
J. Research Foundation
The Research Foundation of State University of New York, located in Albany
is a non-profit, public benefit corporation which administers research funds for
all units of the State University. It serves as trustee and fiscal administrator
for grant and contract funds supporting sponsored research, training, and related
programs which are carried out or supervised by faculty members on all campuses
of the State University. SUNYA's relationship to the Foundation has been excel-
lent, and it has provided the campus with beneficial information and services.
- 30 -
SECTION II. Operation of SUNYA
Introduction
In looking at the internal operation of any university it is possible to
dwell unnecessarily on the discrepancy between the real and the ideal. However,
the writers of this report have been asked to focus on this discrepancy and to
comment on it. The task is difficult at SUNYA because both the state of reality
and the specific ideals we are reaching for are constantly Changing. For example,
Many problems and issues observed in 1968 have been resolved by 1970, and new
ones have arisen.
It is specifically this fluid and dynamic state which gives SUNYA many of
its strengths. The organizational vitality has generated an environment of
optimism about our ability to adapt and to overcome our difficulties. As the
reader approaches the following discussion of Administrative Structure, Govern-
ance, Instructional Programs, etc., he should remember that SUNYA is operating
in a state of continuing transition and self-study. Proposed programs are many,
and changes in governance and administration are under constant consideration.
While many administrative and personnel changes have occurred during the
past few years, one of the most important was the change of Presidents. For
twenty years Evan R. Collins provided the strong leadership for this institution
which carried it through its many difficult developmental stages between 1949
and 1969.
President Collins announced in the fall of 1968 that 1968-69 would be his
last year as President. Allan A. Kuusisto, who had been Vice President for
Academic Affairs for one year, was appointed acting President, and in the fall
of 1969 it was announced that the current President, Louis T. Benezet, would
assume duties in July, 1970. Thus Albany spent two years under the leadership
of departing Presidents.
‘A. Administrative Structures
1.
President--The President is chosen and serves as the Chief Adminis-
trative Officer of SUNYA in accordance with article IX of the Poli-
cies of the Board of Trustees of SUNY. He discharges his duties
largely through the line officer Vice Presidents (Academic Affairs,
Student Affairs, and Management and Planning) and the staff Vice
President (Research). He is assisted in his duties by an Executive
Secretary, two Assistants to the President, as well as,by the Assist-
ant to the President for Community Relations and Development and the
Assistant to the President for Plant Planning. In keeping with the
spirit of Article IX, Title E of the Policies, the President meets
weekly with his "Cabinet" consisting of himself, the four Vice Presi-
dents, and an Assistant to the President to discuss broad questions
of university policy and to exchange views and information on matters
of general campus concern.
A picture of the immediate interrelationship of the President with
groups and individuals is provided in chart I.
It is the goal of the President to ensure wide consultation on the
campus on major policy questions and to promote good communications
with all constituencies. He holds frequent meetings with students
and the officers of their organizations and with the faculty in in-
formation hours. He chairs meetings of the full faculty and partici-
pates in deliberations of the Senate's Executive Committee and Edu-
cational Policies Council. Above all, the President is the head of
_the faculty which, in the governance structure of SUNYA, bears the
major responsibility for the development of the educational program.
- 32 -
It may be that his multiple chairmanships of academic and administra-
tive bodies are in fact too numerous and burdensome, limiting his
Opportunity to think and plan. Such matters are being reviewed.
The President bears legal accountability yet he shares with other
campus constituents every opportunity possible for participation in
policy planning. He is the chief administrative officer, but unlike
Presidents at many other universities, he is not the chief executive
officer: that role is reserved for the Chancellor. The greatest
challenge, perhaps, facing the President in his attempts to provide
academic leadership at a complex and rapidly developing campus is
the delineation and definition of his powers within the limits of the
Trustees' Policies. While all look to the President for definitive
answers and expect him to be able to do what they see is necessary,
he finds that, of course, the days of the "absolute monarchy" are
gone and that he is expected to take into full consideration the
wishes of many groups and individuals. Above all, he must touch
base with the Central Administration before making certain types of
appointments or major decisions of policy. He also needs the sup-
port of the local Council which, to be sure, is not a "Board of
Trustees" but does have certain responsibilities under paragraph 356
of the State Education Law. Unlike Presidents of most other public
and private institutions he has, theh, three formal external groups
with which to consult rather than one.
On the other hand, in the interest of providing a more streamlined
administrative approach, the President and his officers are dis-
couraged from making direct contacts with the Division of the
9 0 TPE samt nate cere
for Academic
Affairs
(C)
Assistant to
President
(C)
Assistant to
President
V.P. for Student |
Affairs |
(C)
Assistant to
President for
Public Information
Assistant to
President for
Plant Planning
(See also Chart IV)
President
Chart I
Fall1-1970 |
President's
Office Staff
V.P. for Management
and Planning
|
|
(C) foo
'V.P. for Research d
(C) |
|
President
(C)
SUNY Central
Administration
Membershjp on Major Governance
Bodies:
SUNYA Senate
Senate Executive Committee
Educational Policies Council
-~cf-
C="The Cabinet"
(fulfilling spirit
of Trustees'
Policies, IX, E)
. — President | “|
Dean, School Dean, 3 Associate and Director, Under- | Registrar | University “College!
of Education | Deans (Divisions) Cabinet | | graduate Adm. | | :
Te - College of Arts :
_ and Sciences esniceerttresintneniene L eee oe
Dean, Schocl of Dean of | | Dean o of Under- | Pirector of
_ Library Science ' Graduate | _| graduate Studies /| Libraries
_ Studies iL
| Dean, Schoel Director, Computing
! of Business Center
| Senos Graduate | vy Assistant V.P. Director, Management |
School of Public \\ j ! i Information Systems
| Affairs Vice President |_| (2) Assistants 7
~~ for to V.P.
| Academic Affairs | Director, University
Dean, School of a ta d T \ Director for Summer Center for Ed. Comm.
' Social Welfare “ N Sessions and Special |} \
‘ Academic Programs \ 7
\ | Director, International,
: ' Dean, School i \ ' \ \ Studies bg
of Nursing \ \ i
Director, Institutional Dean, College of | Director, Center for
_ Research (See Chart IV) General Studies Humanistic Education |
| Dean, School of
| Criminal Justice 7 Associate Dean,
oe 7 . Innovative and Develop.
£ ae Education Programs
Budget Control
Officer (See
Chart LV)
fj Memberships on Major Governance Bodies:
SUNYA Senate and Councils (5)! Under-
graduate Academic, Graduate Academic,
Promotions and Continuing Appointments,
Library, Educational Policies
| V.P. for Academic Affairs
Chart II
Fall, 1970
‘
- 35-
Budget, the Board of Trustees, the Board of Regents, and the Legisla-
ture. These contacts are reserved to the Central Administration.
Within the limits of the Policies, accountability, and consultation,
the President is expected to lead this university center by enrolling
faculty loyalty and support, by being sensitive to the aspirations
of students, and by developing a flexible administrative structure
to meet the needs of the academic program.
The Vice Presidents
a.
The Vice President for Academic Affairs may well be viewed as
the "first among equals." His is perhaps the most demanding
position on campus in terms of the number of groups and individ-
uals with whom he interacts regularly (see chart II). He has the
responsibility for ensuring that educational support services
(the Library, the Computing Center, etc.) are functioning in the
best interests of the academic program. All of the academic deans
report to and consult with him on major questions of academic,
professional personnel, and budgetary matters.
The Vice President plays a major role in making and implementing
policy regarding the allocation of resources for the academic pro-
gram. He--and the Assistant Vice President--are expected to be
available constantly to the many deans and directors with whom
they work. He meets bi-weekly with the deans and directors to
facilitate communication and an open exchange of opinions and pro-
posals. He is ex-officio a full member of the Senate and five of
its most important councils, currently serving as chairman of one
of them.
Bg ee ee
- 36 -
In carrying out his duties the Vice President is assisted by (
an Assistant Vice President, two Assistants to the Vice Presi-
dent and the Director of Special Academic Programs. In addition,
he has délegated major responsibilities to the Dean of Graduate
Studies and the Dean of Undergraduate Studies. Moreover, he some-
times draws upon the talents of an Assistant to the President.
Obvious problems in chart II are readily apparent, mainly the
Overwhelming number of groups and individuals with whom the Vice
President is expected to interact. He spents many hours sitting
in meetings with precious little time and energy available for
constructive thought on a private basis and for closely personal
interaction. A policy harmonizing the antithetical concepts of
decentralization and centralized control to the best advantage
of the university's academic needs must be evolved. These two
problems are the greatest ones facing the Vice President with
respect to the administrative structure of the university.
As "first among equals" the Vice President for Academic Affairs
has frequently been expected to be a kind of "Executive Vice
President"--especially in crisis when rapid responses are needed--
and this role will need clarification. The Office of the Execu-
tive Vice President exists at other University Centers of SUNY,
and has been discussed at Albany:
The Vice President for Student Affairs and the offices and services
responsible to the Vice President grew out of the Student Personnel
Office and the Office of the Dean of Students. The growth of the (
Assistant V.P.
Student Affairs
President
and
Cabinet
for
Director of
Counseling
aren. tee
~~
-Director of
b
Services
Student Health
V.P. for Student Affairs
Chart V
(-Fall-1970
Vice President
Student Affairs
Executive
Assistant
Dean for Student Life
Ass't. V.P. Student Affairs
and
t
Ww
~J
i
Director of Director Director of Director of Dir. of Dir. of | Advisor to
Placement of Atumni Student Act.| | Residence Financial Intern")
Athletics| | Affairs and CC Aids Students
Membership on Major Governance Bodies:
SUNYA Senate
Educ. Policy Council
Student Affairs Council
of the areas encompassed by the Student Affairs "division" in
the past decade has resulted in a corresponding growth in
responsibilities for this area. The administrative structure
of Student Affairs is illustrated in a graphic way in the organ-
ization chart. A major reorganization was undertaken in June
1970. The major objective of the reorganization is to serve
students in a more effective manner.
The major provisions of the reorganization include:
1. The development of the Office of Student Life with a Dean
for Student Life.
2. A revision of reporting structures.
A number of supporting personnel services are provided to meet
specific needs and are seen in the chart.
Office of Student Life
The Office of Student Life is responsible for the administration
of a number of student personnel services and functions, includ-
ing coordinating orientation programs for new students, respond-
ing to inguiries about students and former students, advising com-
muting students, interviewing withdrawing students and assisting
in the completion of the withdrawal procedure, registering stu-
dents for the Selective Service; and responding to the questions
and needs of individual students on a "drop in" basis.
The publication Student Guidelines describes in detail university
policies, rules and procedures relating to student conduct. The
provisions that the University makes for various areas of student
life are described in more detail in the Undergraduate Bulletin
pages 46-55.
In these times of stress~~and particularly in universities of
any Significant size-~it is difficult for the student to per-
ceive any positive feeling for the institution ‘per se'. The
Student Affairs Staff places emphasis on the development of the
individual student. It becomes a major task for Student Affairs
staff members to personalize the institution for the student.
This philosophy or attitude of personalizing is made evident in
several ways: by demonstrating concern for students as individ-
uals, by striving to create environments, activities, and programs
which provide opportunities for self-evaluation and personal growth,
and by working in every possible way to provide efficient and ef-
fective service for all members of our university community.
The members of Student Affairs feel that they are teachers--
educators in a broad sense--and that this teaching function
exemplifies an important aspect of the underlying philosophy of
their work. It is not easy to administer rules and regulations
(some of them unpopular) while attempting to maintain rapport
as a friend, a counselor, or a teacher. This philosophy empha-
sizes the need to be involved in interpreting the institution
to the student--and also in interpreting students and student
action to the faculty, to fellow administrators, and to the broader
society. It becomes an important role in these times to promote
understanding among the sub-cultures of the campus community.
The members of the Student Affairs staff are deeply involved in
work leading to environmental conditions which foster personal
growth. Several members of the staff engage in teaching leader-
Dean for Personnel
Administration
Director,
‘Institutional
Research (see
|} also Chart IL)
| President
and
, Cabinet
|
/
7:
~—_—
Director, Office of
Sponsored Funds
/
—_
Business Officer
T
'
’
Assistant
V.P.
Budget Control
Officer (See also
Chart II) .
Vice President
— for
Management and Planning
\
Director of
Security
Director,
Faculty/ Student
Association
x
x
.
Assistant to
Pres, for Plant
Planning
i
Space Management
Committee | Analyst
/
a
7
é
’
-O7-
Director of Physical
Plant
Membership on Major
Governance Bodies:
SUNYA Senate and
Educational Policies Council
Chart IV
| Fal1-1970
V.P. for Management and Planning
—
Director, Atmospheric
Science Research Center!
Director, Neurobiol.
Research Center
Director, Comparative
President
and
= Cabinet
Vice President
Develop. Studies Center
Director, Center for
Study and Science and
Society
V.P. for Research
| Chart vy
| i Fall, 1970
for
Research |
Director, Office of
Sponsored Funds
Assistant to V.P.
SUNYA Foundation
SUNY Research Foundation
Membership on Major Governance
Bodies:
SUNYA Senate and
Councils (3)
Research Council, Library Council,
Educational Policies Council
-L?-
- 42 -
ship skills and strive to increase sensitivity on the part of
individuals. Additional elaboration of the campus student affairs
philosophy can be found in the Undergraduate Bulletin.
The Vice President for Management and Planning is responsible for
Fiscal Management, Personnel Administration, Security, Motor Pool,
Maintenance and Operation of Buildings, Institutional Research,
and Faculty-Student Association. He supervises the Director of
Business Affairs, Dean of Personnel Administration, Director of
Institutional Research, Director of Physical Plant, and Director
of Faculty Student Association.
The Vice President for Research is responsible for the establish-
ment of policies to increase the effectiveness of réssarch and its
management and to develop a broad program of high quality research
throughout SUNYA. He provides guidance in the preparation and sub-
mission of proposals and is the administrative official responsible
for signing faculty proposals which seek outside support.
3. Schools and Colleges
a.
Each college or school (see chart II) is headed by a dean aided by
an associate or assistant dean and other assistants. In some
cases associate deans bear major "line" responsibility in addition
to assuming staff tasks. For example, in the College of Arts and
Sciences each associate dean is, in effect, also a "division chair-
man" while taking on simultaneously his share of college-wide duties;
this trend is emphasized during 1970-71 while the Dean of the College
is on leave to engage in other activities. The School of Education
- 43 -
engages in a number of service activities whose directors report
to that Dean. The School of Business has just dropped depart-
mental structure and replaced departments with directors of inter-
disciplinary units as part of its curricular reorganization.
Assistants to deans frequently are responsible for administrative
matters, graduate admissions, and the like.
Depending on their size and the presence (or absence) of a depart-
mental structure, each school or college has a number of committees.
Most of these involve students. These committees serve both aca-
demic program and administrative functions, and depending on their
role, consist of either elected or chosen members. Because of its
size the College of Arts and Sciences frequently presents certain
administrative problems in its operation. Proposals have been made
to restructure the college into its three constituent divisions.
From a number of points of view this step must be weighed very
carefully, and the President has indicated that he will give the
entire matter thoughtful attention. The tradition of a strong
arts and sciences faculty as an entity is part of the fabric of our
strong university and should be abandoned only for good and concrete
reasons.
The SUNYA Senate passed guidelines mandating faculty-student con-
sultation in some form in arriving at academic policy recommenda-
tions. Most departments have already implemented the spirit of
these guidelines--even long before they were passed by the Senate--
to encourage student participation on departmental committees and
- 44 -
in meetings of full departments. In essence, the department/ | (
school/vice presidential structure runs parallel to and offers
alternative, frequently interconnecting paths for policy pro-
posals to the SEnate and its council structure.
In an effort to ensure wide participation in the administrative
structure of the university, there has been a great proliferation
of committees and an increase in the number of individuals serv-
ing on these committees. Care must be given that the motion of
the university is not blocked by this proliferation. Furthermore,
the university needs further study of the role of the Senate and
its relationship to the full faculty, to individual academic units,
and to the responsible academic officers of the institution. Until
further clarification is found in this area--and this is a problem
at many major colleges and universities--difficulties are bound to
continue.
4. While all of the teaching responsibilities are carried out through the
departments, schools and colleges, there are several major University-
wide administrative units with responsibility for other aspects of the
academic program.
One university-wide administrative unit, the College of General Studies--
in cooperation with the Office of Special Programs--is generally re-
sponsible for part-time and continuing undergraduate adult education,
both credit and non-credit. The college is required to rely upon the
courses being made available by the several schools and the College of
Arts and Sciences. As SUNYA continues its development, the role of (
- 45 -
the College of General Studies will become increasingly crucial in
enrolling part-time students. Since this will be the case, the
administrative structure of that unit itself and its relationship
to the other academic units and to the Office of the Vice President
for Academic Affairs will need further clarification and strengthen-
ing.
Continuing education at the graduate level is available through the
late afternoon, evening, Saturday and Summer Session program which
is designed to provide courses in academic disciplines and professional
fields for qualified students who wish to broaden their educational
backgrounds through part-time study. These programs are coordinated
by the Director of Special Academic Programs.
A third university-wide administrative unit, the Office of Graduate
Studies, is generally responsible for the administration of graduate
academic policy and for the coordination of graduate programs and
supporting research and study.
A fourth administrative unit, the Office of Undergraduate Studies is
generally responsible for the administration and coordination of
undergraduate academic policy and affairs. Through the University
College, this Office coordinates the academic advisement of under-
graduates (in coordination with'schools and departments for upper
division students). In addition, this Office has line responsibility
for the Office of Undergraduate Admissions and the Registrar's Office.
The Deans of Graduate and Undergraduate Studies provide staff support
and guidance for the graduate and undergraduate academic councils,
respectively. While these offices arein a state of organizational
evolution, they seem effectively organized at present to provide
administrative guidance and coordination as the number and com-
plexity of programs increase.
B. GOVERNANCE
Introduction
As on most campuses, governance at SUNYA is a matter of continuing study
and change. At Albany the Faculty was not organized into a Senate until 1966,
and students were added before the body had completely defined its own responsi-
bilities and methods of operation. There continues to be some uncertainty about
the "policy recommending" versus the "policy forming" roles of various faculty-
student governance bodies and administrative offices. Moreover, responsibility
and authority in many areas have been delegated, and it is not always clear that
"final" authority has or has not been delegated. For example, in some areas it
is not clear whether the Faculty can nullify specific actions of the Senate.
Many such relationships are in a state of transition, but on the whole this
campus's faculty-student governance structures are effectively organized to in-
volve all segments of the campus in decision making.
The faculty of each campus of the State University of New York possess
the responsibility for the "development of the educational program of the Uni-
versity" and for the "conduct of the University's instruction, research, and
service programs." The faculty at SUNYA is organized to carry out these responsi-
bilities, although some aspects of the governance structure are stronger than
others.
~ A7 -
The University Senate is the principal policy-forming body of the campus.
Its elaborate structure of councils and committees constitutes the core of
campus governance, although in times of organizational stress as occurred
during May 1970, the faculty reserves the right to meet as a whole to decide
on questions which are basic to the University's functioning.
1. The SUNYA Senate
The University Senate is the principal policy-forming body of SUNYA. It
exercises most of the powers which are vested in the faculty by the Policies
of the SUNY Board of Trustees. These powers specifically bear upon the faculty's
responsibility for the development of the educational program of the University
and for the conduct of the University's instruction, research, and service pro-
grams. (For text of "Faculty By-Laws," and especially Art. XI, see 1970-71
Faculty Handbook.).
Broad as these powers are, they are obviously not unlimited. At least
three limiting factors may be noted: (1) governing regulations, (2) higher
authority, and (3) intepretations of the scope encompassed by "development"
and "conduct' of the "educational program."
In the interpretation of the Senate's charge, there is not only the question
of what matters legitimately come under the rubric of "development and control
of the educational program," but also that of who should make the determination.
The Senate itself has tended to decide what is legitimately its business, but
there is sentiment on the part of some members of the faculty that this deter-
Mination resides in the faculty, of which the Senate is a creature. This issue
arose last year when the Senate failed to confine itself to matters calling for
action within SUNYA and began taking stands on public questions traditionally
considered external to the institution. The Senate is required to issue an
annual report to the faculty, and presumably the latter could abolish the Senate
at any time.
Composition of the Senate
Until 1969, the Senate was composed entirely of faculty members. The
faculty includes not only those who teach, but also members of the professional
administrative staff, librarians, and other non-teaching professional staff
members. The Senate then consisted of 10 ex officio members, 9 members
appointed annually by the President, 12 members elected at large, and 36 mem-
bers elected by the various schools and colleges making a total of 67 (until
1969). 7
In September, 1969, the faculty authorized student membership in the
Senate. With the addition of 22 undergraduate and 11 graduate student Senators,
the total present membership is 99. A quorum is 50 per cent plus one.
An elected Chairman of the Senate presides at meetings. An elected Vice-
chairman presides in his absence. Each year, in May, the Senate elects a
Secretary and a Vice-Chairman-elect who automatically becomes Vice-Chairman
the following year. At the same time, four Senators are elected to one-year
terms on the Executive Committee. In 1970, one of these four positions was
reserved for a student Senator.
The Executive Committee
The Vice-Chairman of the Senate serves as Chairman of the Executive Com-
mittee. Other members are the four elected Senators, the Vice-Chairman-elect,
the Secretary, and the President of the University. It has become customary
also to invite the two SUNY Senators and the Presidents of the Student Associa-
tion and the Graduate Student Association to sit on the Executive Committee.
The Committee is charged with overseeing the operations of the Senate.
When it is not feasible for the Senate to meet, the Executive Committee acts
in its name. The Committee meets at least monthly to prepare the agenda for
the Senate. It also appoints members of the Senate Councils and other boards,
committees, and commissions, subject to confirmation by the Senate.
Senate Councils
Most of the Senate's business is transacted by its seyeral Councils, each
of which has well-defined responsibilities. Each Council's memberships con-
sists of a specified number of elected faculty Senators, an equal number of
students, and varying numbers of additional faculty members, who need not be
on the Senate. In 1970, the Senate adopted a formula for student representa-
tion on Councils which result in the following composition of the various
councils, aside from ex officio membership:
Under- Other Grad Other
Faculty grad Under- Student Grad Other
Council Senators Senators grads Senators Students Faculty Total
Undergrad. Acad. 4 2 2 e) 9) 9 17
Grad. Acad. 3 6) 0 3 2 7 15
Stud. Affairs 3 2 2 1 0 9 17
Research 3 1 0 1 1 6 12
Personnel Pol. 5 2 1 1 1 4 14
Promotions & Cont.
Appointments 4 1 1 1 1 5 13
Educ. Policy . 4 1 1 1 1 8 16
Library 2 0 1 8) 1 7 11
Univ. Eval. &
Improvement 3 2 2 1 1 3 12
Grievance and
Complaint 2 1 9) 1 O 3 7
In addition, several of the Councils have a number of standing committees.
These are appointed by the parent Council and chaired by a member of the
Council, but they include non-members of the Council, thus increasing still
further the number of participants in the governance of the University.
The names of the standing committees indicate the kinds of matters with
which individual Councils are concerned. The standing committees of the
Undergraduate Academic Council are: Academic Standing, Admissions, Honors
and Independent Study, and Curriculum.
The Graduate Academic Council has the following standing committees:
Admissions and Academic Standing, Curriculum and Instruction, Educational
Policies and Procedures, and Review of Graduate Programs. This Coun¢il form-
ally admits graduate students to degree candidacy, votes the awarding of ad-
vanced degrees, and approves graduate programs and policy.
The Student Affairs Council does its work through these committees:
Student Conduct, Financial Aids, International Students, Student Residences,
and Student Government Organization. In addition, at the request of ttle Senate,
an ad hoc committee on drugs and related health matters has functioned for
several years. |
The concerns of the Personnel Policies Council are illustrated by the
titles of its three committees: Academic Freedom, Economic and Professional
Welfare, and Campus Parking and Traffic Policy.
The Council on Promotions and Continuing Appointments addresses itself to
promotion and tenure policies and recommends individuals to the President for
promotion and continuing appointments.
The Council on Educational Policy participates in the budget making process
and is responsible for the campus academic plan and other major policy matters.
The Council on Research reviews and encourages research activities and
commitments within the University. The Library Council establishes policies
for the University Library.
The Grievance and Complaint Committee reviews cases brought to it by
individual faculty members who feel that they have been treated unjustly or
that a situation at the University needs correction. A new Council on Univers-
ity Evaluation and Improvement, established in 1970, is charged with seeking
out evidence regarding the effectiveness of the University's functioning, and
with calling attention, and if possible suggesting solutions, to problems that
are identified.
(For official wording of legislation establishing councils, see section
on "Senate Councils," following "Faculty By-Laws," in 1970-71 Faculty Handbook).
Some accomplishments of the 1969-70 Senate
Over a period of two months during the first year in which students were
members of the Senate, numerous meetings were devoted to the issue of whether
the Senate should take a stand on the Vietnam War. Some Senators felt that it
was not only proper but extremely important that the Senate speak for the Uni-
versity, or at least the University community, on this and other critical social
questions. Other Senators disagreed on at least three grounds: that they were
not authorized by their constituents to speak for them on political matters,
that the adoption of official positions would inhibit inquiry and the free flow
of ideas, and that debating broad social questions would prevent the Senate
from dealing with urgent University business. In its original form, the
particular resolution which initiated this debate was felt by many to be vague
and overly sweeping in its condemnation of United States' government policies.
In the end the Senate rejected (50 to 16) a portion of the original motion de-
claring that the Senate "is obligated to take a stand on national issues" and
then adopted (38 to 26) a modified resolution condemning continued American
interference in the internal affairs of Vietnam. The adopted resolution was
transmitted to a long list of government officials. The resolution indicated
that the Senate is the most representative body on campus but that in taking
this position it was speaking for a majority of its own membership, and not for
the University or the entire University community.
Because this one matter consumed so much time and attracted so much atten-
tion, it is easy to overlook some other highly significant accomplishments of
the 1969-70 Senate. Perhaps the three most far-reaching actions were (1) the
adoption on an experimental basis, of a "pass"--"no credit" grading system for
- 52 -
4
freshman and sophomores, (2) the modification of university-wide degree re- (
quirements to eliminate specific course requirements outside the major field,
and (3) the adoption of a new academic calendar and class schedule.
In addition, the Senate:
-~establiished a faculty-student Committee on Teaching.
--Created a Committee (later an enlarged Commission) on
University Governance.
--Made "Disciplinary Removal from Residence" available as
a judicial option.
--Adopted Guidelines for Faculty-Student Consultation and.
created a procedure for reviewing departmental and school .
plans for compliance. |
--Voted to permit doctoral students at other SUNY institu-
tions to study at this campus without formal admission.
--Defined "Satisfactory progress" for students in the
Educational Opportunities Program.
--Scheduled a two-day period of University-wide "dialogue".
--Confirmed the absence of classified research on campus.
--Established an authoritative information center in the
Campus Center.
--Created a Special Committee on Faculty Evaluation and
Personnel Action Criteria.
--Created the new Senate Council on University Evaluation and
Improvement.
--Created a University-wide Fund Board.
--Approved the following new Graduate Programs:
Masters’ program in Geography
Masters' and Ph.D. programs in History of Science
Ph.D. program in Philosophy
Ph.D. program in Sociology
Five year Master of Business Administration Program
2. College and School Governance
The Instructional Program is the responsibility of the President with
the responsibility delegated to the Vice President for Academic Affairs, the
Deans of Graduate and Undergraduate Studies, ahd School and College Deans.
Within the College of Arts and Science, the Associate Deans for Humanities,
Natural Science and Mathematics, Social and Behavioral Sciences, bear responsi-
bility for the instructional program of those units. Likewise, the department
chairmen share the responsibility and obligation to participate significantly (
- 533 -
in the initiation, development and implementation of the educational program.
As was noted earlier, the Senate through its Councils, now has the university-
wide governance responsibility for the instructional pusoran. Certain responsi-
‘bilities have been delegated to the schools including the recommending of students
for degree conferral, approval of courses, graduate admissions and student advise-
ment.
In spite of their recent establishment, most of the Schools at SUNYA have
a faculty-student committee structure which sets policy and makes decisions in
most of the major areas of governance: curriculum, promotion and tenure, per
sonnel, admissions and academic standing, instructional resources, program de-
velopment, etc. Those schools which have a less elaborate structure (such as
Nursing) are relatively new and/or small. Moreover, students (both graduate
and undergraduate) have been formally involved to such a great degree that
nearly every school is having difficulty recruiting enough interested students
to fill all the committee vacancies.
The College of Arts and Sciences is the least developed in its faculty-
student governance. As the largest, and most complex academic unit on the campus
the College is one which most needs an organized and representative structure for
conducting its academic business. Hopefully, by the time this report is com-
pleted, the long overdue by-laws for the College will be enacted. The situa-
tion in the College is discussed in more detail in Section III, Humanities:
Organization and Governance.
3. Student Government
Student Government at State University of New York at Albany is vested in
two organizations: the Student Association and the Graduate Student Associa-
tion. For many years Albany has had a strong and elaborate undergraduate
- 54 -
oa
student government. In addition to the traditional executive, legislative,
and judicial bodies, there are over 130 diverse interest groups that make up
many of the educational, cultural, recreational, political, religious; social,
and community service programs for the student body. The Student Association
is the governing body for all undergraduate students, and is organized on three
levels. Central Council, the Supreme Court, and MYSKANIA constitute the top
level. Five commissions and PanHellenic Council exist directly below Central
Council and various groups and organizations are governed by the commissions.
A more elaborate description of Student Association is in CAMPUS VIEWPOINT 1969
(a publication of Student Association) pages 41-45.
Central Council
Central Council is the supreme legislative and executive body of Student
Association. It works through representatives of all phases of University
life. Members are elected from the general student body in a ratio of one
representative per 400 students from each living area and commuting students.
Each Commission sends two representatives to Central Council. Five faculty
members (appointed by the University President) also hold positions on Council.
The Student Association Constitution delegates to Central Council the power to
enforce all of its laws and form any new law necessary to continue operating.
Central Council is responsible for several things: Student conduct, establish-
ing financial policy, allocating money, and ultimate power over finances. Council
may recognize organizations which do not fall under the five Commissions. Though
Central Council has supreme legislative and executive powers, it delegates as
many of these powers as possible to the Commissions.
The Academic Affairs Commission: Consists of representatives from the
more than 30 academic and departmental clubs on campus.
The Communications Commission: Contains representatives from the dozen
recognized publications, including the campus radio station.
oa
Commission for Community Programming: Contains representatives from at
least 50 student organizations who are subdivided into various boards:
Arts and Cultural Concerns Board, Special Events Board, Social and
Political Concerns Board, Recreational and Athletic Concerns Board,
Campus Center Governing Board. |
Living Affairs Commission: Consists of representatives from all the
various residential governing bodies.
Religious Affairs Commission: Representatives from 10 or more religious
Pan-Hellenic Council: Representatives from 18 Fraternities and Sororities.
organizations.
MYSKANTIA
MYSKANIA is the highest on-campus non-academic honorary organization.
| Members are selected by popular wte of the student body. A student is eligible
for membership at the end of his junior year.
Supreme Court
The Supreme Court is comprised of seven students who must be in good
academic standing. A term lasts for two years or until graduation, whichever
comes first. Applicants are screened by MYSKANIA and are approved by a two-
thirds vote of Central Council.
Class Governments
The Sophomore, Junior and Senior classes also have officers and a govern-
mental structure. Many officers choose to set up class councils of interested
students who work toward promoting class interest in many areas such as planning
campus social events and working in areas of community social concern.
Membership
» t
Central Council, Academic Affairs, Community Programming Commission,
Special Events Board, Campus Center Governing Board, Living Area Affairs Com-
mission, and the classes have self-nomination forms available at various
times during the year. Some of the Commissions and Central Council also
derive members from their constituent groups. Pan-Hellenic Council draws
its members from the fraternities and sororities.
-
Graduate Student Association . (
The Graduate Student Association is composed of all graduate students at
the University except those considered members of the faculty or administration.
The Graduate Student Association is a relatively new development on this campus
and has only begun to exert an influence on the University. In the past year,
however, graduate students have been elected to committees and councils of the
University and to the University Senate. The Association's major activities
during the 1969-70 academic year have been the development of a social prodees
and the development of a philosophy outlining its areas of involvement. The
Association was successful in lobbying for a substantial increase in the stipends
of graduate assistants and fellows. Thus far, graduate student interest in the
association has been very issue-oriented, and the graduate student organization
associated with the various schools and departments have been more active and
cohesive than the campus-wide GSA. The articles of organization of the Graduate
Student Association and the constitution of the Student Association are avail-
able from the Dean for Student Life.
Problems and Concerns
Student Association has encountered difficulties in several areas over
the past year. Central Council has responded to growing student activism and
radicalism by taking increasingly militant stands on issues pertaining to the
University and to society in general. A Political and Social Positions Com-
mittee has been established to advise the Council on matters relative to gov-
ernment and society outside the University, and Central Council now considers
itself responsible for formulating positions in these areas.
During 1970 the Student Association experienced a number of problems relat-
ing to the evolving University governance structure. The relation of those
students who were elected to the Senate, and the relation of those students
- 57 -
appointed to departmental committees, to the Student Association, was ill-
defined at best. The role of Central Council to Senate which included students
only reached definition stages during the year. This definition occurred on an
issue oriented basis, including such problems as a new library fines schedule.
The ambiguous relationship of the Student Association to other governance bodies,
and especially to students on these bodies, is still being operationally defined.
Expenditure of funds from the mandatory student tax has been the subject
of a long controversy on the campus; and during 1970, a student initiated a
Court case against the Student Association and the University to prevent SA
expenditures for a free school, day care center, Third World Liberation Front,
and moratorium buses to Washington, D. C. A decision in the State Supreme
Court temporarily prohibited the SA from spending any funds on any student
activities until they received the determination and approval of the Board of
Trustees as to whether the activities are educational, cultural, recreational,
or social in nature. Responsibility for making this determination was dele-
gated by the Board of Trustees to the campus President. The President has
approved all appropriations made by the Student Association, to this date,
for the 1970-1971 budgetary year. Despite the fact that referenda have been
held on the mandatory assessment issue each spring for the past two years,
strong sentiment exists among some students to revise the mandatory nature of
the assessment.
(C. INSTRUCTIONAL PROGRAMS ve
The SUNYA instructional program contains many diverse elements, and this
section discusses some of the more important features. The undergraduate
degree requirements have been recently revised and these are presented. The
undergraduate program also has many distinctive features such as the Educa-
tional Opportunity Program and S-U grading for freshmen and sophomores. The
-
graduate programs are too complex to discuss in detail so the discussion below
indicates a few of the more important problems connected with the administra-
tion of these programs. In addition, the programs available for summer session
study, part-time study, and continuing education are briefly discussed. Moreover,
the important instructional resources supporting the various academic programs
are presented. While not involving large numbers of students, many foreign and
domestic inter-institutional cooperative programs add a distinctive flavor to
both graduate and undergraduate education at SUNYA. Finally, this section out-
lines the program development under way and planned by individual schools and
departments.
1. Undergraduate Program
Within the administrative and governance framework described in the
previous sections, the State University of New York at Albany confers the
bachelor of arts and the bachelor of science degrees.
Degree requirements may be found in the Undergraduate Bulletin.
Within the undergraduate division there are two programs: First, the
general program prepares a student to enter a variety of occupations directly
upon graduation or following graduate or professional study, and secondly,
the teacher education program which is designed primarily to prepare for teach-
ing in the secondary schools and leads to provisional certification by the State
Education Department upon graduation.
Admission and Advisement
7 .
A student is admitted as a freshman at the State University of New York
at Albany without regard to his intended major field of study. All students,
except those pursuing a bachelor of science degree in nursing, are enrolled
in the University College which is an academic administrative unit responsible
for the academic advisement of freshmen and sophomore students.
College staff consists of twelve full-time and eleven one-half time academic
advisers.
When a student has achieved junior status, i.e., has completed a minimum
of 56 credits toward the degree and a minimum 2.0 average and declared a major
field of study, he is transferred to the department or school offering that
major. Students entering the university with at least junior standing are
admitted
Academic advisement on the upper division level is the responsibility
directly into the department or school offering that degree.
of the faculty of the department offering the major. This advisement is
coordinated through the Office of the Dean of that school or college in
cooperation with the University College.
offering an undergraduate major appointed a member of the faculty to serve as
a "University College Associate." The responsibilities of the University
College Associate include:
1.
2.
3.
Serving as the liaison between the University College and the
department on academic advisement matters.
Serving as resource person for University College students and
staff in matters such as graduate education, vocational oppor-
tunities, advisable supporting courses, and information on the
nature and content of that discipline.
Coordinating the academic advisement of juniors and seniors in
that department.
Meeting periodically with the Assistant Dean of the University
College and other University College Associates in that division
of the University. -_
Consulting with upper division majors experiencing academic
difficulty.
The University
In September 1970, each department
Departmental Programs (
In a limited number of departments (Accounting, Business Administration,
Classics, Comparative Literature, English, Mathematics and Nursing) "depart-
mental programs" have been established. The departmental program has been
designed to provide an alternative to the more highly structured major regis-
tered with the State Education Department. While the content of the depart-
mental program varies, it can be said that usually the departmental program
permits a much more individualized course of study. |
Educational Opportunities Program
The Educational Opportunities Program (EOP) was inaugurated in the Summer
of 1968 to provide a collegiate educational opportunity to economically de-
prived students who because of concurrent social and cultural deprivation did
not meet undergraduate admission standards, but who appeared to possess the
intellectual capacity to complete a regular degree program at the State Uni-
versity of New York at Albany.
The EOP Office was established to administer the program, to provide
special counseling on the ratio of one counselor to fifty students, to provide
remedial instruction in English Composition and Literature, Mathematics, Science,
Reading and study skills, and to provide tutorial assistance for students in the
program on the ratio of one tutor to four students. The courses listed above
generally do not receive degree credit; however, in certain instances when the
instructor, who is also a member of the faculty of the department, assesses
the performance of the student as being equivalent to that required in a com-
parable course, degree credit may be given.
While no new degree programs were created for students entering the
University from disadvantaged backgrounds, it has been assumed that some (
students in this program will exceed the "normal" four years to complete the
baccalaureate degree requirements. In accordance with this expectation and
understanding that a period of time would be necessary for some students to
make the adjustment to collegiate work, academic standards regarding proba-
tion and academic dismissal were slightly modified to accommodate
the special needs of these students. Generally, the special standards are
to be in effect for the first two and one-half years of the student's tenure
as an undergraduate at the University.
The enrollment by semester of EOP students has been as follows:
Fall Spring
1968-1969 162 160
1969-1970 367 365
1970-1971 629
Grading
Since the Fall 1969 all freshmen students have been graded on an S-U basis.
Beginning in the Fall 1970 all freshmen and sophomore students were graded on
an S-U basis. Junior and senior students are graded on A-E basis. Members
of the faculty may create courses on an S-U basis, if they receive the con-
currence of the members of the faculty of their department and the approval
of the Undergraduate Academic Council's Committee on Academic Standing. For
the Fall 1970 semester, there were approximately twenty-seven upper-division
courses authorized for S-U grading.
It should also be noted that on the Albany campus, an undergraduate
student may withdraw from any course without penalty up through the last day
of class for that semester. This grading policy has been in effect since
September of 1967.
Future (
The on-going task before the undergraduate division of the university is
to develop the campus objectives for undergraduate education. A spécial con-
cern in the seventies will be a thorough review of some of the more recent de-
velopments in undergraduate education. Grading practices will be under almost
constant study. Independent study courses and community service for academic
credit will be critically reviewed to keep the gap between the real and the ideal
as narrow as possible. Moreover, the trends toward the development of interna-
tional and inter-disciplinary programs will probably continue and strengthen.
Tensions between undergraduate and graduate education must be resolved. A
particular concern is the need to balance undergraduate large and small group
instruction. Another matter will be the size to which departments shall grow
with consideration being given to the number of majors to be graduated from the
department and the amount of departmental resources to be dedicated to "service
work."
2. Graduate Instructional Programs
The State University of New York at Albany offers graduate study leading
to the degrees of Master of Arts, Master of Science, Master of Business Admin-
istration, Master of Library Science, Master of Public Administration, Master
of Social Work, Doctor of Philosophy, Doctor of Education and Doctor of Public
Administration.
Programs leading to the M.A. or M.S. and those leading to the M.P.A. are
one-year (30 credit-hours) programs. They require a specialization in an
academic discipline or in a professional field. In the arts and sciences and
in criminal justice they are intended to be the first year of a doctoral pro-
gram; in the professional field of education some serve that purpose and
others are terminal degrees. They require a minimum of 18-24 credits in the
special field including (except in a few programs in education) a research
seminar (in which a major paper is prepared) or a thesis. In addition, these
master's programs in arts and sciences and criminal justice and the master's
program in public administration require the satisfactory completion of a
comprehensive or major field examination. Also, nearly half of them include
a foreign language or competence in some other research tool requirement.
Programs leading to master's degrees in business administration (M.B.A.),
in library science (M.L.S.), and in social welfare (M.S.W.) exceed one year.
The M.B.A. requires 45-60 credit hours, the M.L.S. 36 credit hours and the
M.S.W. two full years, or 60 credit hours.
The University Certificate is similar to an intermediate, terminal degree.
It requires two years (60 credit hours) as a minimum to complete and is offered
in the major specializations in education and school psychology.
Graduate programs leading to the Ph.D. or the D.P.A. require at least
two years (60 credit hours) of advanced study and research beyond the bacca-
laureate plus at least one year in research and writing a dissertation. These,
with other requirements, ordinarily involve the student in some four years of
full-time study or the equivalent over a longer period. Programs which lead
to the Ed.D. require at least two and one-half years (75 credit-hours) of ad-
vanced study, research and internship beyond the baccalaureate plus approxi-
mately one year in research and writing a dissertation. These, with other re-
quirements, ordinarily involve the student in four to four and one-half years
of full-time study, depending upon the extent of this internship. Since most
students complete substantial parts of these programs in part-time study, it
is common to complete this equivalent over a longer period of time.
- 64 -
‘The graduate programs offered at SUNYA are described in some detail in (
the various school and college graduate bulletins. Each graduate bulletin
also contains other appropriate information such as admission and degree re-
quirements, regulations governing graduate study, financial information,
courses offered, etc.
Academic channels for the introduction of new graduate programs are well
defined, are known and understood by most departments, and appear to be work-
ing well. Revisions and modifications of established programs which are not
inconsistent with University-wide graduate policies or regulations are readily
accomplished through the University Office of Graduate Studies. New courses
and revisions of older ones are channeled through school and college curriculum
committees and then to the University Office of Graduate Studies for final ac-
ceptance and recording.
A variety of problems regularly exist in the administration of graduate
programs, which is a responsibility shared by the University Office of Graduate
Studies and the individual school or college, and in the operation of the pro-
grams, which is a responsibility of the department or of the school or college
if departments do not offer separate degree programs.
1. Foremost among these problems is that of the advisement of graduate stu-
dents. As programs at Albany have become flexible and graduate regula-
tions revised to provide a greater latitude for the student, a corres-
ponding increase in responsibility has been assigned to advisors. This
change, plus the increasing number of graduate students, places a heavy
burden on all advisors. New and substitute advisors are not always
properly oriented and instructed by their departments prior to working
with graduate students on their programs and schedules.
2. Another problem is that of operating programs at appropriate levels of
scholarship and professional competence with large numbers of part-time
students. The problem is greatest in the School of naucation and exists
to some degree in the College of Arts and Sciences, in.the School of
Library Science, and in the Graduate School of Public Affairs. All of
these schools cope with this problem successfully, but it presents problems
in scheduling, advisement, and admissions.
3. The departments and schools experience some problems associated with some
shortages of staff for their advanced programs and generally insufficient
financial support for graduate students in the form of assistantships and
fellowships. Currently, approximately 36 percent of all graduate students
in full-time study are supported with full assistantships or fellowships
($2800-$ 3000 plus waiver of tuition) from the regular University budget
and approximately 10 percent from research and other grants.
4. The expansion of graduate programs has put a special strain on the Uni-. |
versity Library, and although appropriations are substantial, collections
are not being built in some fields as rapidly as they are needed.
S- A further problem which affects the instructional program is the lack of ©
adequate space for faculty and research activities at the present time.
and the resultant crowding of students and faculty.
There are, in addition, a great many other problems which affect the in-
structional programs indirectly, but in important ways, such as the lack of
married student housing, and there are the usual day-to-day problems of opera-
tion. These are reported elsewhere.
- 66 -
3. Summer Session and Part-Time Study
The summer sessions are designed to serve undergraduate and graduate
students of this University and other institutions who wish to continue or
accelerate their progress in degree programs. They are also designed to
serve non-degree students at the graduate level who wish to attend courses,
workshops and institutes for further intellectual or professional development.
Non-degree undergraduate students are served by the offerings of the College
of General Studies. -
Courses are offered by virtually every department of the University during
the seven-week main summer session. A more limited selection of courses is
offered in the shorter sessions. Most classes meet daily and are scheduled
throughout the day and evening. Special programs take students overseas for
study of languages and theatre and off-campus sites appropriate for archaeology,
biology and ecology. Instruction is provided by the regular faculty supple-
mented by visiting professors.
In the 1970 summer session 4,685 students registered for credit and 1800
others were served in non-credit institutes, workshops and conferences. All
resources and facilities of the University are available to summer session
students.
During the academic year, continuing education at the graduate level is
available through the program of late afternoon, evening, and Saturday (LAES)
courses which is designed to provide courses in academic disciplines and pro-
fessional fields for qualified students who wish to broaden their educational
backgrounds through part-time study. Courses are available in arts and sciences,
business, education, library science, and public affairs.
Programs leading to a master's degree in many fields are available to
employed persons, Graduate programs at the doctorate level, available through
a combination of full-time and part-time study, are offered in several fields
in education, arts and sciences, and public affairs. Students whose objectives
can be served by a single course or by a limited number of courses may enroll
as non-degree students.
No distinction is made among graduate courses offered in the regular day
session; courses offered in the late afternoon, evening, and Saturday session;
and courses given in the summer sessions. The standards for admission and
academic requirements are essentially the same. In the 1970 fall semester
300 courses were offered while approximately 2800 students registered for
part-time study at the graduate level in LAES and daytime classes.
4. Continuing Education
The College of General Studies is the academic and administrative unit of
the University charged with undergraduate continuing education. The College
of General Studies has been offering undergraduate credit offerings since 1965
to non-matriculated part-time adult students. The courses are regular courses
scheduled during the evening hours and solicited by General Studies from the
academic departments. The number of courses available each semester averages
about 45 with an additional twenty courses offered during the evenings of the
summer session. This past year a total of 1,820 students enrolled through
General Studies.
SUNYA cooperates in the College Proficiency Examination program and in
the College Level Examinations of the:College Entrance Board. The College of
General Studies frequently advises adult students to sit for these examina-
tions and they have been a means of helping the adult who has prepared in a
subject by means of self-study to build towards his educational objective.
Independent Study correspondence and T.V. courses are offered by SUNY
and available through fifteen of the campuses of SUNY including SUNYA. The
College of General Studies arranges for instructors to cover eight (8) of
the fifty (50) credit courses available. The program, now completing its
third year, has been a valuable means of helping both the working adult
student and the regular student who has been unable to find a place ina
classroom.
The basic problem is the rapid burgeoning of students, faculty and diverse
programs on the campus. General Studies, like all other operational units of
the University, is in competition for teachers and courses. This is less of
a problem now for General Studies than in previous years because faculty lines
have been made available and General Studies has been able to serve an increas-
ing number of adult students. As an example, the enrollment in General Studies
for the Fall semester 1969 was 633 with a total of 2,166 credit hours, in the
Fall 1970 it is slightly less than 1,000 with 5,135 credit hours.
A second problem concerns the lack of a degree program within General
Studies, which means that the student's courses are not organized in a coherent
fashion. There are long-range plans for the development of degree programs in
this area.
5. Instructional Resources
Library
The Library is discussed in Section III. Resources
Computing Center
»? .
The Computing Center was established in late 1965, its personnel consisting
of a newly hired Director and five persons who had been operating a small
punched card facility on the old campus. The Center was moved to an annex in
November 1965 where it took delivery of its first computer, a Control Data
3100, in June 1966. Usage of the 3100 grew to the point where it was virtually
saturated by June 1968, at which time operations were moved to the present
10,000 square-foot facility on the new campus. The 3100, a medium-scale com-
puter, was replaced by the extremely powerful large-scale UNIVAC 1108 in the
summer of 1969. The 1108, like its predecessor, is operated as a centralized
service to the three principal segments of the University users: administra-
tion, faculty researchers, and students.
The use of the computer and its staff for administrative data processing
a
has had low priority as compared with the instructional and research require-
ments. This situation has been corrected and now usage is more evenly balanced
among these groups. The major student users are those enrolled in formal courses
offered by the Computer Science Department. The department is an organizational
entity which, although distinct from the Center, has relied heavily on Computing
Center personnel holding dual appointments, including the Director of the Com-
puting Center, who has been serving as Chairman of the Department as well. Be-
ginning in 1970-71, the two functions have been separated completely through
hiring of a new Center director while the former Director continues as Depart-
ment Chairman only.
The Center's personnel strength has now grown to approximately 50 persons,
about evenly divided between professionals, principally programmer analysts,
and clerical or operational personnel. Its major equipment, the UNIVAC 1108,
is comparable to or better than that being used by most U.S. or foreign uni-
versities.
Educational Communications Center
The development of the Educational Communications Center at SUNYA has
been gradual, requiring a substantial investment of money and human resources.
Over the last three years, $1,125,000 has been allocated for technical ser-
vices, research studies and technological investigation to further two basic
objectives:
1. Support and facilitate established programs of instruction.
2. Help implement a new program of instructional development.
Though the first of these goals is important, the second is primary.
The Center is concerned with academic objectives first, experiments second,
and continuing evaluation always. At the same time the staff must concern
itself with costs and the administrative grouping of the variety of talents
needed to achieve the goals. Hard questions must be asked. What materials
work best in which situations? Why? How much sensory and/or cognitive bom-
bardment can the human organism absorb? How are the media to be programmed for
human interaction?
Administratively the ECC has two interlocking but separate operations:
(1) the work of producers, writers, and designers who work directly with aca-
demic personnel who wish to design a course specifically for large group pre-
sentation or for independent study carrels, and (2) the work of the supporting
staff of graphic artists, photographers, and studio personnel who all contribute
to the completion of the new course structure.
At this writing there are some twenty courses in stages of development
ranging from pre-production planning through experimental presentations. Some
of these are specifically designed to utilize fully the potential of the large
group amphitheatres, others are oriented toward small group instruction, and
some aim to provide software for independent study carrels. Though the major
effort is with undergraduate courses, the scope includes such diverse projects
as a modular development for the Master of Business Administration program and
a film that will be a cinematic interpretation of Machiavelli's "The Prince."
To achieve the two goals stated, the ECC is currently capable of provid-
ing the following specific functions or services: the development of communi-
cations systems and services: either the production or acquisition of materials
falling within the concept of educational communications; writing and editorial
advice and skill; the electronic storage and retrieval of materials; conventional
audio-visual services; multi-media systems operation; testing and evaluation
services; television distribution services; graphics and photography production;
creative design; the operation of film, tape, and transparency libraries.
In short, the ECC is a full partner to those who wish to redesign courses
for the future and a supporter to those who wish merely to add some AV presenta-
|
. . i |
tions to a conventional course. |
6. Inter-institutional and Foreign Programs
International Academic Programs
During the past two academic years there has been an increase in operating
international programs and an increase in approved programs to become operational.
These programs were of many types reflecting the interests and needs of students
and faculty at Albany and abroad as well as the United States Government, foreign
governments and foundations.
The Director of International Programs is responsible for the coordination
of SUNYA international programs, and he chairs the Committee on International
Programs, a faculty advisory group to the President and the Vice-President of
Academic Affairs.
Those SUNYA programs which continue to provide opportunities for graduate
and undergraduate students to study at overseas universities in 1970-71 are
at Wurzburg, Germany; Nice, France; Rome, Italy; Madrid, Spain; and Guadalajara,
Mexico. New summer programs in the summer of 1969 enabled SUNYA students to
study theatre in England, and the German language at the Goethe Institute in
Germany.
The success of this German summer language program in 1969 led to the ¢
approval of similar programs for France, Spain, Germany, Italy, Portugal,
Puerto Rico and Canada. While pre-freshmen already accepted for admission to
SUNYA are encouraged to participate in these programs, students from other
SUNYA classes who wish to satisfy language requirements are also eligible and,
indeed, do join the programs.
Full academic year programs in 1970-71 were approved for study in Rome and
Madrid. In these instances--as in Wurzburg, Nice and Guadalajara-- a SUNYA pro-
fessor accompanies the group to supervise the academic work and assist the
students.
For the first time in 1970-71 SUNYA students are studying as a group for
a full year in a non-Western country. Undergraduates from SUNYA and SUC New
Paltz will be studying Chinese or following a Southeast Asia area studies pro-
gram at Nanyang, the Chinese University in Singapore. This is an exchange
program involving both students and faculty, and it has been assisted by the
Asia Foundation.
To further enrich SUNYA's Asian program preliminary plans are underway
for 1971-72 to provide graduate work in a variety of fields at six colleges
in Mindanao, Republic of Philippines.
In cooperation with SUC Brockport, SUNYA has planned for a semester pro-
gram at the Centro Intercultural de Documentation in Cuernavaca, Mexico be-
ginning in January of 1971. SUNYA students will be able to combine a semester
of study at Cuernavaca with a semester at Guadalajara if the work fits in with
their academic programs.
In Summer 1970, 126 SUNYA students studied overseas under approved arrange-
ments; and in Fall 1970, 108 students are taking advantage of these programs: (
94 undergraduates and 14 graduate students.
- 73-
In addition SUNYA hosts about 270 students fiom 53 other countries during
1970-71. Approximately 50 are undergraduates and 220 graduates. The Inter-
national Student Office continues to play an important role in assisting all
foreign students on campus.
International Assistance Programs
In addition to those SUNYA programs which involved students studying at
SUNYA or abroad, SUNYA was also active in special programs of assistance to
foreign institutions and governments. Large numbers of foreign observers
were sent by the U.S. government or foreign governments to visit SUNYA for
periods of one day to a month, but five programs of technical assistance are
of sufficient size to warrant special mention. Since these are not directly
related to the instructional program, they are only summarized here.
(1) Under an AID grant, four service officials from the Argentine Ministry
of Education spent 10 months working with the faculty and staff of the School of
Education in a special program designed to assist these visitors in the develop-
ment of their own programs.
(2) Through the new Comparative Development Studies Center, two pro-
fessors and two archaelogists from SUNYA aided in an archaeological survey and
in development in Cyprus as part of a new Cypriot Institute established by
SUNYA with the active cooperation of Cypriot Government and the U.S. Depart-
ment of State.
(3) Another program of the Comparative Development Studies Center under
tt
an AID grant is a project to assist other nations in legislative development.
(4) A program with Indonesia, which began in 1957, is designed to assist
the Ministry of Education in teacher education in Indonesia.
(5) SUNYA, through the Center for Inter-American Studies, has sponsored
a two-week Summer Seminar on Social Studies, attended by teachers at the high
school level from the Central American countries, Panama and the Dominican
Republic.
Domestic Inter-Institutional Programs
In addition to the various international programs, SUNYA has formal
cooperative arrangements with several institutions in this country: ra
(1) The SUNYA State University Program in Student Personnel Services is de-
signed as a graduate internship program to prepare student personnel special-
ists for positions in colleges and universities. It requires two summers of
study at Albany and an intervening academic year devoted to internship and
part-time study at one of the cooperating state colleges, two-year colleges,
and university centers, and leads to conferral of the Master of Science by
SUNYA.
(2) SUNYA collaborates with State University colleges in offering programs
in Educational Administration and Curriculum-Instruction leading to the
Specialist in Education or to the Doctor of Education. Master's degree courses
and programs at the State colleges are coordinated with the program at Albany
so that up to one-half of the program requirements may be completed at one of
the participating colleges.
(3) Arrangements are in effect which permit doctoral students in good standing
to take work at any of the SUNY Centers and ‘the College of Forestry without sub-
mitting academic credentials and without going through the usual admission and
application procedures.
(4) The summer program in environmental biology at the Cranberry Lake Bio-
logical Station in the Adirondacks is a cooperative program of instruction
and research conducted and supported by SUNYA and the State University College
-75-
of Forestry at Syracuse University. The program combines faculty, facilities,
and specialized equipment from both institutions, and credit is applicable as
resident credit in appropriate undergraduate and graduate degree programs
offered by each of the cooperating institutions.
(5) SUNY Albany and SUNY Binghamton have a cooperative program in Italian
which began in September 1970. Students take approved courses in Italian at
either SUNY Albany or SUNY Binghamton for residence credit. In addition,
approved graduate courses in Italian at the University of Rome's SUNY unit may
be credited toward this master's program.
(6) Arrangements are in operation which provide for the inter-institutional
study of doctoral students in the Universities in the Albany area. The partici-
pating institutions are Albany Medical College, Albany Law School, and Union
College of Union University, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, and State Uni-
versity of New York at Albany. To qualify, a student must have been formally
admitted to doctoral study (or to the master's program in Computer Science) or
be engaged in full-time study.
(7) The College of General Studies is working with the community colleges of
the area to coordinate the development of Educational Television programs.
(8) SUNYA through the College of General Studies is completing its second year
of participating in a consortium of academic institutions concerned with train-
ing black leaders in the cities of Albany, Troy and Schenectady. The other
institutions involved in this Federally-funded program are the College of St.
Rose, Siena College, Hudson Valley Community College, Union College, and
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute.
(9) In a program for undergraduates, the Department of Sociology is involved
in a cooperative program with the N.Y. State Department of Mental Hygiene de-
signed to open career ladders for College students in a number of mental health
fields. The program is externally funded.
7. Program Development and Future Plans
As was mentioned in Section I, the campus generally operates within the (
parameters established by the campus Academic Plan and the SUNY Master Plan.
However, the campus has a great deal of influence over the programs appearing
in the plans and local decisions are crucial to implementing and shaping specific
instructional programs.
College of Arts and Sciences is
In general, the College is committed to the development of quality graduate
programs in every Division of the College. However, not every graduate program
is expected to offer every possible area of specialization. During the next
five years the College seeks to develop particular strengths within each of its
graduate programs that will capitalize on staff strengths, location, physical
facilities, and social needs especially as relevant to the State of New York.
We reject the concept of a dichotomy between "theoretical" and "applied"
emphasis, and strive instead to develop graduate teaching and research that
relates the two.
Undergraduate programs, as currently offered in the College, cover the
whole spectrum of the Arts and Sciences. No new majors are anticipated at
this time, although curriculum revision is a constant process. If new areas
of concentration emerge for majors, they will likely take the forms of inter-
diciplinary programs.
At the present time (Fall 1970) the College offers 31 Master's programs
and 17 doctoral programs. Proposals for a limited expansion of doctoral pro-
grams are in draft for consideration by college and university committees.
As was noted earlier in this chapter, the Division of Science and Mathe-
matics now offers Ph. D. programs in six departments. The departments of Com- (
puter Science and Geological Science propose to introduce doctoral programs in
the near future.
In the Division of Social Sciences, Ph. D. programs are offered in
economics, history, psychology and sociology. A doctoral program in anthro-
pology has been proposed to begin in September 1971. In addition, the de-
partment of Afro-American Studies has just proposed a masters program.
The Division of Humanities is discussed in more detail in Section III of
this report.
Doctor of Arts
Among the more significant academic developments in the College are the
plans for the introduction of the Doctor of Arts degree. The growing volume
of complaints that the narrowness and specialization of the Ph.D. does not
constitute the most desirable preparation for undergraduate teachers has
caused re-examination of the Ph. D. and consideration of alternatives. With
the backing of the Graduate Academic Council, SUNYA applied in the Spring of
1970 to the Carnegie Corporation of New York for funding of a year's program
in the College of Arts and Sciences to develop the Doctor of Arts (D.A.)
degree in several of the departments already awarding the Ph.D. SUNYA was
one of ten institutions across the nation to be awarded such funding.
This grant provides $108,000 for (a) relieving one professor in each of
the three divisions of Arts and Sciences from teaching duties for the current
year; (b) retaining a consultant from Williams College and one from Orange
County Community College for the year; (c) travel expenses, (d) the services
of a secretary and a graduate assistant. Each of the three professors heads
a committee with membership from each department offering doctoral study within
his respective division; both students and faculty are represented; and a steer-
ing committee is composed of members from the campus, Central Administration,
and State Education Department.
The Planning Group has already received detailed proposals from the de-
partments of English and Economics, and expects to receive proposals for adoption
in 1971 from French, Spanish, Physics, and Math. Preliminary discussions are (
in progress toward the development of proposals for interdepartmental degrees
in Literature and in Environmental Studies. Additional proposals are likely
to be offered in 1971-72. The degree itself must first be authorized within
the State of New York by the Board of Regents (an action expected this December).
The local program proposals must be approved by the Graduate Academic Council
and SUNYA Senate and forwarded for approval by the Central Administration and
the Board of Trustees of the State University, who must then register the pro-
grams with the Regents. Internship arrangements must be worked out with area
colleges; twelve colleges within fifty miles of Albany have expressed willing-
ness to consider individual candidates for internship appointments. Fellowship
support is expected from both State and Federal sources.
The D.A. programs will follow the guidelines established by the AASCU and
the Council of Graduate Schools. The degree patterns include (1) an academic
major of roughly 45 semester hours, (2) a series of supporting courses in re-
lated disciplines and/or Education, (3) a planned series of experiences involv-
ing the candidate in the complexities of college teaching, (4) seminars and
colloquia within the major department dealing with the problems of teaching the
particular subject, (5) a comprehensive examination following the coursework,
but one more broadly conceived than the traditional Ph. D. examination, (6) a
dissertation, shorter than the usual Ph. D. dissertation and focused on issues
within the discipline or on applications of the discipline (rather than the
creation of new knowledge), and (7) an internship year or at least one semester
as a full-time faculty member in a two-year or four-year college. Thus the dis-
tinctive differences from the Ph. D. are (1) breadth of preparation as opposed
to specialization, (2) specific orientation towards college teaching, and (3)
a sequence of practical experiences in teaching, under supervision of experienced (
- 79 -
teachers of the particular subject. The degree will require three years of
work beyond the bachelor's degree, plus the internship. The degree parallels
the Ph. D. and is intended to be terminal in the same sense as the Ph. D.
The D.A. has met with opposition as well as enthusiasm. Some departments
are having difficulty placing graduates of the Ph. D. programs and therefore
fear that they may not be able to place D.A. holders; on the other hand, the
expansion of two-year colleges and the open admission and "full opportunity"
policies adopted within New York State should offset this ee Some
faculty also express concern lest their students earn a second-class degree;
this concern does not appear to be justified if the programs are the best the
departments can conceive for the preparation of undergraduate teachers. Other
opposition has come within some departments which are heavily engaged in re-
search programs; there is an underlying fear, rarely enunciated, that financial
support may be diminished and that research assistants may become more expen-
sive or even disappear. This fear usually is masked as opposition to the D.A.
on the grounds that its teaching orientation is antithetically opposed to all
research and that it is even (on that account) anti-intellectual. Such fears
appear unwarranted at this time.
The total impact of the D.A. degree, of course, is unknown but indica-
tions are that these programs will serve as vehicles for significant changes
in graduate education at SUNYA.
School of Business
In the past year, the School of Business at SUNYA has been attempting to
break with the traditions which have held it somewhat in a position of inertia.
The School of Business has in the past suffered from mixed objectives. It has
inherited a tradition stressing business teacher education, but in recent years,
under the influence of the Ford Foundation (Gordon-Howell) and Carnegie (Pierson)
critiques of business schools, some of the faculty has reached for more in-
tellectually challenging offerings in the quantitative and behavioral directions.
The result was considerable tension until recently and a failure to develop pro-
grams which challenged the full capabilities of the SUNYA students. Furthermore,
dependence on a high proportion of transfer students (almost two-thirds of the
junior and senior classes in 1969-70), the majority of whom had completed most
of their business courses before coming to Albany, meant that the undergraduate
program was primarily a "holding operation" without a direction of its own.
The faculty of the School of Business is not unanimous in its understand-
ing of what the objectives should be. A substantial minority, mostly employed
in recent years, is committed to innovation and to attention to the frontiers
of knowledge. The School is moving rapidly toward these objectives and faculty
recruitment is aimed at augmenting this group.
One concern at present is whether the University, having indicated its
desire to create an outstanding School of Business, will move on to other
priorities before the new School design has been fully or even partially im-
plemented. The proposed budget for 1971-72 suggests that one year of signif-
icant increased support (1970-71) is about all that the School can expect.
This is not to say that the support in 1970-71 is lavish. In fact, some
absolutely essential elements of the School's development plan (especially
support of the course development necessary for an innovative program) have
not been supported.
- 81-
During 1969-70 the School developed a strategic plan aimed at converting
it into one of the leading schools in the country. Faculty support for this
plan has been most satisfying; the votes have been overwhelmingly favorable to
the proposed improvements in spite of the unsettling impact of such changes upon
those accustomed to much older traditions of management education. The key ele-
ment of the Plan is a completely revised MBA program.
The undergraduate program of the School has been less affected by these
changes. Two new undergraduate alternatives have been introduced: the first
an experimental program which will provide field experience overseas or in a
problem urban setting in New York State; the second, a pre-professional pro-
gram which will lead systematically to a combination of a B.S. and a M.B.A. in
five years. Hopefully these new programs will provide ideas useful for a
gradual revision of the entire undergraduate program.
School of Criminal Justice
The School of Criminal Justice, founded in 1965, is an interdisciplinary
graduate program leading to the M.A. and the Ph. D. During the fall 1970 term
there were 26 master's degree and 50 Ph. D. students. The faculty numbers 13
full-time members exclusive of the Dean.
The School of Criminal Justice is a unique aspect of graduate work at the
State University of New York at Albany. It is not, in any sense, a conventional
department of criminology, nor is it a training center for police, parole offic-
ers or other practitioners. It is being developed as a major center for scholarly
research on all aspects of crime and criminal justice, from questions of the na-
ture of crime to the study of the organization and operation of enforcement agen-
cies, and the problems of penology and parole. "Criminal Justice" is considered
in its very broadest aspect. There is no existing model for the School, and it
is necessarily an experimental. enterprise.
The current faculty has been drawn from the fields of law, sociology,
psychology, public administration and research design and methodology. New
faculty appointments will strengthen these areas, and will further broaden
the interdisciplinary nature of the program. Students also have available
to them course work in other Schools in the University, particularly the
Graduate School of Public Affairs and the Schools of Social Welfare and
Education as well as the Departments of Psychology, Economics, Sociology
and Anthropology and other departments of the College of Arts and Sciences.
The present research interests of the School and its faculty lie in four
very broad areas: the nature of crime as a social deviance, social control,
organization and operation of criminal justice systems, and innovation and
change in criminal justice systems.
That the School of Criminal Justice is well on its way towards being
recognized nationally as a center of academic excellence is indicated by
the five-year grant of $250,000 for fellowship support that has been made
by the Ford Foundation, and by the fact that 20 per cent of the recent
fellowship awards made by the U.S. Department of Justice have been given to
the School.
Development plans for the School of Criminal Justice include, besides the
expansion of faculty and student body and the continued broadening and deepen-
ing of an already extensive program of research, the fuller support of graduate
students, the institution of a program for post-doctoral fellows and research
associates, an expanded program of visiting professorships in a variety of
disciplines, and the creation of positions within the school for persons from
the lower socio-economic areas that are the source of a major part of large-
city crime, as a means of associating such "new career" types with crime-
related research projects. A program of greatly increasing library and archival
- 83 -
materials is also being planned. While the School has been well supported
by the University, extensive outside support will continue to be sought.
In general, the intention of the School of Criminal Justice is to
become the nation's principal center for study and research on all aspects
of crime.
School of Education
In 1960, the Middle States Association, and the National Council for
Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE) made a joint visit to SUNYA. The
1969-70 year was one of self study for the School of Education in preparation
for the NCATE visit of March, 1970. The four volume NCATE report is available
for the Middle States Association tean.
The decade between visits has seen many changes in the School of Education.
Six doctoral and twelve masters programs have been developed and are flourish-
ing. Financial support from sources outside the university has risen.
For years SUNYhas prepared secondary teachers of academic and business
subjects and some specialists (guidance counselors, principals, etc.). More
recently the School has added specialized programs for school psychologists,
student personnel counselors, rehabilitation counselors, teachers of emotionally
disturbed and others.
Gradually, but perceptibly the school has extended upward in preparing
personnel for colleges (faculty, administrators) and downward to the elementary
schools (reading teachers, supervisors, administrators). In no sense, however,
is the School yet a comprehensive school of education. School proposals for a
Center for the Study of College and University Administration and for the estab-
lishment of masters degree programs for preparing community college teachers
should be significant steps in higher education. University plans for a doctor
of arts degree is another milestone in this direction.
- 84 -
Long range plans suggest that a graduate program leading to permanent
certification of elementary teachers is now in order, and this is in the
planning stage. The SUNYA policy to actively search for black faculty has
been very much in the School's thinking, and has influenced recruitment. The
decision to transfer the Business teacher education function from the School
of Business resulted in a unified department within the School of Education.
That department has primary responsibility for the graduate and undergraduate
preparation of business education.
For years the School of Education has provided numerous institutes and
workshops for international educators. An AID funded project for Argentine
educators is one example. Currently under development is a Mathematics-
Science Education project for the minister of education of Zambia. Another
service oriented project will be our national AACTE conference to celebrate
International Education Year.
In addition to the service type of international development, we are
now finding many overseas opportunities for our students and these are dis-
cussed earlier in the report.
Growth and development in any new area frequently leaves those in estab-
lished programs feeling unsupported. The growth of the School of Education
in the graduate field cause some to feel that there is a diminution of commit-
ment to undergraduate education. In the same way the development of general
programs at SUNYA and the resulting emphasis on research cause some concern
over the future of professional or applied programs. The Middle States Asso-
ciation team may wish to examine this to determine the balance or imbalance on
the research-teaching-service effort as well as the relative emphasis on the
academic vs professional aspects of education.
- 85 -
General Studies
General Studies is on record in the Master Plan of State University with
respect to degrees both on the undergraduate and graduate levels. On the
undergraduate level formal application has-been made to the Council on Educa-
tional Policies. .Two types of degree programs are planned; one to be a con-
ventional program on the upper divisional level calling for a major area in
public safety and a specialization in one of the allied health sciences. The
i:
second type of degree program would be an inter-disciplinary adult degree pro-
gram similar to ones at Brooklyn College and the University of Oklahoma. Again,
this would be on the upper divisional level.
The College of General Studies is currently working toward the establish-
ment of one or more science centers for the purpose of upgrading science in-
struction on the elementary, secondary and community college levels. Such a
center will provide a counseling service to individuals, teachers and industry.
Also planned are credit and non-credit courses dealing with the applications
of science and with the service of science to many of the problems that con-
front individuals and groups in their political and social settings.
The Institute of Gerontology is currently planning on undergraduate se-
quence and several graduate programs in the allied health fields (with strong
concern for the aging process). The essence of these programs rests in the
fact that the broad area of allied health services is the concern and that the
programs in General Studies will, for the most part, not consist of unique
courses but rather a designed meld of courses already in the University tempered
to a program appropriate to the objectives of the health profession to which the
program is addressed.
Planning money has been appropriated by the Legislature for a continuing
education center to be located on the campus at SUNY Albany. While the center
has a low construction priority, as planned it will have over 63,000 square (
feet with provision for residential use with 70 twin-bedded rooms and a total
dining space able to accommodate 700 persons at one seating. In addition,
there will be an auditorium capable of holding 480 persons,16 conference rooms
and five seminar rooms. The conference center will be linked to the campus
communications center and a small specialized library will be linked to the
broader resources of the country by TWX and a dial-access computer system.
|.
School of Library Science
The School of Library Science, one of the fifty-two graduate library
schools accredited by the American Library Association, has existed at Albany
Since 1926. There were during the 1970 fall term approximately 330 candidates
for the degree of Master of Library Science, of whom slightly less than half
were full-time students. All work is on the graduate level, except for two
service courses. There are no plans for an undergraduate major, although a
second-field program in library science is being planned for twenty junior-
year students brought to the campus under a federal grant which will allow them
to complete the junior and senior college years and proceed through the M.L.S.
There are 15 full-time faculty members in library science excluding the
Dean, who has a faculty appointment. About four part-time faculty members are
employed during the typical semester.
The Graduate Academic Council of the University has approved a Ph. D.
program in library science and this program is’ expected to be processed through
the usual channels shortly, and the first students accepted for September 1971.
The programming plans for the School of Library Science center upon
curriculum development. The School is engaged in discussions which are expected
to result in a new master's level curriculum which will have options for students
interested in aspects of traditional library service with an emphasis upon a
theoretical study of the field, especially in its social implications, for
students interested in the various communications media, and for students
who wish to concentrate upon information science and computer applications.
The doctoral level curriculum will be restricted to information science and
to the social and political aspects of library and information science.
It is expected that both master's and doctoral progress will be very much
interdisciplinary in nature, and that all students will have part of their
course work in schools other than the School of Library Science, including
the School of Public Affairs, the School of Education, and the College of Arts
and Sciences.
The implementation of program plans will require the addition of about
nine new faculty during the next five years. Budget restrictions at present
seem to indicate that these additions may not be forthcoming during that time
period.
The School's plans also call for up-grading of admissions requirements
(although present admission requirements are higher than, or equal to, admission
requirements for any graduate library school in the United States), for more
university fellowship support of graduate students, and for a great increase
in the percentage of full-time students.
Under discussion at present is a change in the M.L.S. curriculum that
would make this master's degree a two-year degree, with the possible inclusion
of the fieldwork option. The present 36-credit degree can be acquired in two
semesters and a summer session.
The obligation of the School to develop a program of continuing education
for professional librarians in the State has not been met, except in a most
minimal sense. Again, budget restrictions have made such a program difficult
to create. Plans for a continuing education program will be begun during
Spring 1971, with the hope of budget support in 1972-73 academic year.
School of Nursing
The School of Nursing, established in 1967, offers an integrated four-
year plan with liberal arts courses and nursing courses offered concurrently
in each year of the program. The integrated plan represents the only means
by which nursing courses can move from simple to complex in all clinical
areas rather than moving from one clinical area to another. It is, however,
a difficult curriculum to schedule and administer in view of the broad base
required in bio-psycho-social sciences.
In implementing the curriculum, nursing faculty is dependent on depart-
ments of the College of Arts and Sciences for 65-70 credit hours in physical,
biological and social sciences and in humanities. Limiting enrollment in
cognate courses essential to the nursing curriculum creates serious diffi-
culties for nursing students and faculty. Unavailability of some required
non-nursing courses (human growth and development, nutrition, etc.) necessi-
tates offering such content under a nursing course number thereby creating
an apparently disproportionate number of hours in the nursing major.
Clinical courses are introduced at the beginning of the second year.
_Throughout the total program, these courses include clinical practice in
seven local hospitals and health agencies. '
Morale problems among students are diminished through a close relation-
ship with faculty as students’ early identification with the profession seems
to instill a sense of purpose and personal worth.
Lack of time for planning and developing of curriculum and policies is
gradually being overcome. Budget allocation is now more realistic than it
was during the first years of the program. Space accommodations now provide
privacy in faculty offices and allow for a demonstration-practice room for
teaching basic nursing procedures on campus. Growth of the School will con-
tinue to be impeded, however, until the West Podium is completed, probably
1974-75.
The faculty now compares favorably with faculties in most schools of
nursing. All members hold at least one, and several hold two graduate degrees.
The greatest strength of the School is probably the curriculum with its
strong emphasis on family and community health care. This creative approach
to nursing education, when fully implemented, could do much to effect changes
in the delivery of health care to people.
The SUNY Master Plan called for establishment of a graduate program in
1970. Obstacles to the orderly development of the undergraduate program and
the national shortage of qualified faculty now call for a re-assessment of
this plan. Since Russell Sage College already has an accredited masters pro-
gram, and considering the national shortage of nurses qualified to teach at
the graduate level, it seems prudent for this University to direct its efforts
toward a program of continuing education for nurses rather than to create
another masters program at this time. There is great need for continuing
education and it is much easier to program, finance, and staff a graduate pro-
gram in nursing.
Accreditation by the National League for Nursing has not yet been sought.
The School if eligible to apply during the 1970-71 academic year but, because
of the lack of planning time in its establishment and the effects of two
successive austerity budgets in its first two years of existence, it is not
- 90 -
prepared to meet this schedule. It is hoped that circumstances will warrant
applying for national accreditation during 1971-72.
Public Affairs
The Graduate School of Public Affairs was established as a separate unit
of State University--responsible directly to the Office of the Chancellor-- in
1962. The School replaced the Albany Graduate Program in Public Administration
which had been created at State government initiative in 1947 to provide grad-
uate professional training for members of the state service on a part-time basis.
In 1965, State University Trustees directed that the Graduate School of Public
Affairs become a constituent element of the University Center at Albany.
The Department of Public Administration has two major mid-range objec-
tives: (1) the achievement of strength and distinction in three core areas
of public administration (a) management science, (b) fiscal analysis, and (c)
organizational behavior, and; (2) the development of graduate professional
degree programs in urban and regional planning.
The Department of Political Science has three major mid-range objectives:
(1) the achievement of distinctive strength in the core area of comparative
political analysis; (2) the revision of the undergraduate major program to
emphasize more independent intellectual exploration by the student coupled
with more individualized faculty guidance and; (3) the refinement of the Ph. D.
program to serve the needs of a small, selected group of doctoral students.
The Political Economy Program is operated by the Graduate School of Public
Affairs and staffed largely by the Department of Economics. The political
economy faculty is seeking to define and articulate the appropriate elements
and boundaries of the study of the public economy and, in conjunction with
other departments of the GSPA and other Schools, to incorporate the relevant
analytic skills in its program. Primary attention is being given to the re-
finement of the M.A. program.
The Graduate School of Public Affairs is committed to advancing the oppor-
tunity for interaction and linkages between studies in the policy science discip-
lines of the University and the urgent problem-solving needs of the community
and government. Toward that end, the School attempts to establish and maintain
channels for communication, collaboration and understanding between its faculty
and students and those individuals, groups and organizations in the larger
society that are exercising public responsibility. It is held that the nurtur-
ing of these structures and processes strengthens the efforts of both types of
institutions to achieve their related but different goals.
The School plans to enlarge its activities in this area in two ways. First,
its Public Affairs Research Center has been re-chartered to broaden its service
research responsibilities and will be launched under new leadership in 1971.
Second, the School is expected to move ahead in the exploration of new educa-
tional experiences for students and faculty: special internships with public
agencies; off-campus semester-length study and research programs in Washington,
D.C. focusing on political, administrative and policy processes; special sem-
ester programs in Albany, New York City and other locations, for intensive
examination of problems of state and urban government.
School of Social Welfare
The School of Social Welfare currently offers a Masters of Social Work
degree. In addition, it offers nine credits at the undergraduate level which,
when combined with appropriate courses in other social science departments,
constitute a second field sequence.
The School of Social Welfare has had a program leading to a Ph. D. in Social
Work approved by the Graduate Academic Council of the University. It is
currently being processed through appropriate channels. The program will not
be implemented prior to September 1971.
The School is also in the process of developing an undergraduate major in
Social Welfare. It is planned that eventually this program will be integrated
with the graduate programs to form a continuum of Social Welfare education from
the Bachelor's through the Ph. D. degrees.
Continuing Education programs are increasing rapidly in response to demands
of the broad Social Welfare community. It is anticipated that the graduate pro-
gram of the School will have a total (masters degree) enrollment of 120 students
during the academic year 1970-71. The undergraduate program should enroll from
150-175 students, and Continuing Education programs will serve an additional
two hundred (200) students. These enrollment prospects are generally consis-
tent with those submitted to the revised University Master Plan a year ago.
- 93 -
Il. D. STUDENTS
°
1, Enrollment ~ mE
The following Tables illustrate some interesting facts about enroll-
ment at Albany. First, although graduate students account for almost
one-third of the head-count enrollment, their contribution to the FTE
enrollment is more Like 22% (many are part-time), Secondly, most under-
graduates take courses in the College of Arts and Sciences, whereas the
largest part of graduate training occurs in courses offered by the six
professional schools. Thirdly, in terms of both class size and faculty/
student ratio, graduate students and those in the sciences enjoy the
smallest classes.
A preliminary analysis of the Fall, 1970 enrollment figures indicates
that they are very close to the projections shown in Table 4, but theF TE
total is more like 11,400. Reflecting the increasing numbers of
transfer students and the "leveling off" of admitted freshmen, about
55% of the undergraduate students are upper division. (This also reflects
a relatively low attrition rate). Moreover, 62% of those registered for
Fall 1970 have been at Albany less than two years. This has implications
for the manageability of the total enterprise.
Like the enrollment figures in Tables 3 and 5, the record of degrees
conferred reflects the historically large role of the School of Education in
graduate study at Albany. The role of the College of Arts and Sciences is grow-
ing rapidly, but the School of Education still enrolls more graduate stu-
dents and awards more graduate degrees, as is reflected in Table 6, than
does any other school or college.
Table 3
SUNY Albany Student Enrollment Detal 1969-70
FTE* Enrollment:
Campus Total
AGS Humanities
Social Sciences?
Science & Math
Professional Schools
Average Class Size:
Campus Total
ASS Humanities
Social Sciences
Science & lath
Professional Schools
FTE Students + FTE Faculty:
Campus Total
A&S Humanities
Social Science
Science 6& Math
Professional Schools
3
Campus, . Lower Upper
Total Division Division Graduate
10,175 5,625 2,350 2,200
3,000 2,150 550 300
2,450 1,925 625 300
- 2,000 1,500 325 175
2,725 450 850 1,425
28 38 23 15
24 30 19 - 9
39 66 30 9
30 37 23 6
— 25 638 23 21
14.5 na na na
15.5 na na na
19.0 na na na
12.5 na na na
13.0 na na na
lFigures rounded off to ease interpretation.
2FTE is calculated on the basis of student enrollment in courses offered
by each academic unit.
SIncludes political science from Public Affairs.
1970-1 (Fall)
Undergrad
Grad
Total
1971-2 (Fall)
Undergrad
Grad
1975+6 (Fall)
Undergrad
Grad
Total
1980-1 (Fall)
Undergrad
Grad
Total
Enrollment Projections
1970, 1971, 1975; 1980
Office of Institutional Research
15,300(est.)
PTE
18,09090(est.)
TABLE 5
SUNYA Graduate Headcount Enrolliment* Fall 1970
) By School, Division, and Degree
Doctoral Master's Non-Degree
Campus Total (4046) ‘703 2511 832
Arts & Science Total (1069) o7h 668 127
Humanities (408) 70 286 52
Social Science (354) 69 . 245 Lo
Science and Math (307) 135 137 35
Bus iness (215) 182 _ 33
| Criminal Justice (78) . 50 26 2
‘© Education (1852) 305 971 576
Library Science (389) 374 15
Public Arfairs (317) 57 101 nis
Social Vielvare (109) 109 0
School Psychology (17) 17.—- ose _—
(joint progran bethwecu Psychology
ad Bducational Psycholozy)
“oes rot include siuderts enrolled through
the Colleze oi Gefpval Studies who teld bachclors de, recs.
~ 97 -
Acadewiec Years
Total Bachelors
Total Master's
Total Doctorates
Arts ¢ Seience (Ph.D. ) Total
micLis*. .
vrench
Psychology
Axaospheric Science.
Biolory .
Cu a@uistry
Prysics
“ducavion Total Doctorates
TABLE 6
SUITYA peerees Converved* For The
Jducational Adwinistratvion (na.>.) aks:
Curvicvlui-Instruction (£a.D.)
Guidazce & Pevsoniel Service (id.D.)
ud. Psychology (Gd... & Pu.d.)
Public Afieivs Total Doctorates
Public Administration (D.P.A.)
Political Sciexce (P:.D,)
Political “eonory (Ph...)
*ircluded are degrees converred by
SUNYA
the Gracuate
s Encins: Lact. June
1963: -gch © — 1965 1966 19C7 1968 1969 1570
536 585 714 725 782 1,051 1,232 1,366
290 350 4B 476 452 563 704 768
2 es ae 10 7 15 20. ug
2 ) 6 16
1 0) 2 2
2
3
. 1
1
1 O in 7
| 2
1 1 oh 1 3 lo 5
1 a 5 3 3 8 10
. 1 1 2 3
2 1 3 h 5
: ): fe) G
1 ) fe) 3 9) b. 9) G
L 0 9) 1 9) 1 0 9)
2 ) 3 ) L
2
School of Public Arrairs prior to its consolidation with
‘
2. Undergraduate Admissions
1)
2)
State & SUNY Policies
The Admissions Office is subject to statutory and administrative
dicta from many quarters, Legislative enactments, chiefly the
Education Law; regulations of the Commissioner of Education;
the resolutions of the University's Trustees; plus university-
wide administrative policy and procedural statements are, there-
fore, added to those policies and procedures originating on this
campus.
Briefly, these “external” policies are generally concerned with
definitions of unfair educational practices; regulations of
tuition charges; definitions of resident students and foreign
students; standard application forms and fees; preadmission
deposits and refundability of such; professional relations with
high school and commercial admissions agencies; profiles;
- recruitment; research; and travel expenses.
SUNYA Policies
(The following stated policies are the result of either the
above-mentioned external policies or direct action by the
Undergraduate Academic Council's Committee on Admissions).
Admission to undergraduate study at the State University of
New York at Albany is based on evidence of high school grad-
uation or the equivalent, quality of performance acceptable
to the university, and desirable personal characteristics,
without regard to race, color or creed. ‘Within these general
guidelines, the university bases its decisions on both the
quantitative and qualitative aspects of each applicant's record.
Quantitative: Currently, candidates must present a minimum of
18 units of high school work acoeptabie to the university. As
per New York State law, high school graduates have successfully
pursued 4 units of English and 3 units of social studies; we,
in addition, require at least two units of mathematics, including
elementary algebra and plane geometry.
We also recommend that a applicant present at cece units
of a labora atory science; a | three-year sequence in nathenatics for
those who intend to pursue. a major in mathematics or the sciences;
and foreign language study, particularly for those who intend to
pursue the B.A. degree.
Qualitative: The admissions decision is also based upon a
composite evaluation of the following:
1)
2)
3)
4)
3)
three year (six semester) high school average as reported
to us by high school counselor;
the average of all end-of-course New York State regents
examinations in academic grades 9 to 11 only;
the applicant's rank in class as reported by the school at
the time of application;
the total and sub-scores achieved on the required standardized
test. Currently, this involves the Regents Scholarship
Examination (or State University Admissions Examination) for
in-state students and the SAT scores, verbal and mathematics,
for out-of-state applicants.
Although the personal interview and subjective teacher or
counselor rating sheets are not required of most Paneer
it is possible that we might require one or both in certa
instances.
Exceptions: Currently, the principal exception t» the above
- 100 -
of. _ ... requirements concerns applicants to and considera-
tion for the Educational Opportunities Program, established in
1968. This special program consists of financial aid, based on
demonstrable need, and compensatory academic coursework. High
school graduation, or its equivalent, is required, and admission
is granted without regard to race, color or creed, but the remain-
ing quantitative/qualitative considerations as noted above are
not controlling factors in the admissions decision, Rather, ,.
applicants are also evaluated in light of subjective factors
inclusing background; potential as evidenced by trends, test
scores, averages, evidence of leadership qualities; large or
small successes in or out of school; required personal references
from school and community: financial need; career objectives;
interviews in some instances, availability of required compensatory
needs; and competition within the EOP applicant group. Current
priorities emphasize freshmen, males, severe financial need ana
academic deficiencies to such an extent that an educational
opportunity beyond high school would not be routinely
available to the applicant.
Also, the Director of Admissions is empowered, by action of the
University Senate, to admit on a limited basis those students who
do not meet the competive standards but do possess “valuable
life experiences". This policy was the result of Jiscussions
surrounding applications. from those returning from active
military, Peace Corps and Vista service. These students have,
to date, been expected to meet minimum selective, as well as
quantitative, requirements.
The attached profile indicates that the students admitted to
the Class of 1973 are the result of a rigorous selection pro-
cess, Profile information from previous years indicates that
the overall quality of each class has improvéd; dué to" the
increased competition for the available Freshmen openings. The
profile currently being prepared for the Class of 1974 indicates
an overall increase of quality as compared with the Class of 1973.
Table ?Profile of Mean Admissions Data
for the Albany Freshman Class Entering
Fall 1967-70
Statistics __1967___ 1968! __1969! 1969219701 _ 1970"
H.S. Average 88 88 89 87 91 85
Regents Average . 87 88 89 85 91 | 85
Rank in Class Top % 10% 9% 9% 12 7% 14%
Regents Scholarship Exam, 212 217 216 207 224 203
L These figures do not include the data on the students admitted under
the Educational Opportunity Program (200 in Fall, 1968; 300 in Fall,
1969; and 300 in Fall, 1970).
These figures reflect the mean averages for the 282 commuting Freshmen
admitted in Fall 1969, and 340 in Fall 1970.
Advanced Standing--Transfers: : Those undergraduates who have
successfully completed collegiate study at another regionally
accreditated college or university in-coursework comparable to
that offered by SUNYA, are admitted according to-available
openings. Generally a 2.5 or Ct average is required:of transfer
Students. The current application load of 3,800 transfers versus
the 850 vacancies clearly indicates the presence of a competitive,
- 102 -
as well as selective, process and the need for priorities.
Priorities, as presently defined, would favor the upper division
ransfer ;
from a community college.
Advanced Standing--Freshmen: The university grants advanced
placement and/or credit to participants in the CEEB Advanced
Placement Program. Current policy is to award placement with
credit to those achieving a score of 5 or 4, Those with scores
of 3 or less are awarded placement and/or credit at the dis-
cretion of the department concerned based on a review of the
examination.
International Students: A limited number of foreign students
is admitted each ao The admissions decision is based on a
thorough review of academic credentials; English proficiency
as evidenced by the TOEFL or other comparable test; and financial
indepedace, (It should be noted that SUNYA currently has no
intensive English course for those whose native language is
other than English. Also, exgept for * possible tuition waiver,
SUNYA has severely limited financial resources for international
students, )
Non-deqree Students: A limited number of non-degree appointments
js Made each term, usually to those students who are enrolled
in a degree program elsewhere and have a compelling need t9 study
for a term at SUNYA. Ip 2c himited sense, these accommodations
are made to those who do not qualify for admissions but have
a compelling need to attend SUNYA, These students are expected
to apply formally for degree admission commencing with the next
available semester. Oo
Commuting Students: Since commuting students do not require housing,
their applications do not compete with those who apply from outside
the Capital District. Therefore, Albany can admit more commuting
students with lower academic averages. As Table 7 shows, however,
the commuting students admitted in Fall 1969 and Fall 1970 are well
qualified.
Current Problems: A thorough study of immediate problems has been
initiated by the Undergraduate Adni ssions Office and a series of
policy items have been identified and are being readied for
presentation to the Committee on Admissions. Briefly, these
problems concern the following:
1) clarification of the "charge" to the Admi sions Committee
and its specific role with respect to the Undergraduate
Academic Council; | |
2) statement concerning College Level Examination Program
examinations in regard to advanced standing and/or credit;
3) policy concerning the possible admission, to non-degree
status, of those qualified high school students who are
accelerating and/or supplementing their high school
coursework;
A) clarification and/or revision of quantitative requirements
in view of the recent proposal which revised undergraduate
degree requirements.
5) policy statement concerning the admission of qualified
students who, although they do not meet the current
'- competitive standards, are needed in order to fulfill cer-
tain university needs--i.e., nursing students; art,msic,
and drama majors; scholar athletes, etc.;
- 104 -
6) clarification of the policy relating to "valuable life
experiences", especially in terms of numbers and priorities
among applicants of this type; |
7) policy to cope with isolated cases of willful falsification
of the formal applications, especially in the case of those
who are admitted prior ta the discovery that such falsifica-
tion took place; |
8) review of current policy which precludes the admission of
any and all applicants who are on "drop" Status at their
previous institution: |
9) a statement regarding the submission of information to
comeréial companies for inclusion in "college selection"
publications,
Long-range Problems: We foresee increasing problems with work-
load, and the trend to further explore ‘and identify those sub-
jective factors whi ch, in combination with objective data,
might strengthen the validity of the admissions decision, Also,
there appears to be an increasing need for departmental admission
and quotas for transfer students.
The university has indicated its commitment to "experimental
college” and "general" programs. Exploration of admissions
role in this area is, therefore, a pressing problen.
- 105 -
--
3. Graduate Admissions -
Responsibility for admission of graduate students to the
State University of New York at Albany is decentralized as is
the operation of admission procedures except for the admission
of foreign graduate students.
In general, responsibility for graduate admissions rests
with the individual schools and college. However, the University
Office of Graduate Studies is responsible for the coordination of
admission policies and practices and takes whatever action is
necessary to insure that University standards and procedures
are held to in the schools and college and that the interests of
the applicant and the University are properly served in the admis-
sion actions.
All foreign graduate student applicants apply for admission to
any graduate program in the University through the University
Office 2f Graduate Studies. After receiving certifications con-
cerning competence in English, financial ability, academic cre-
dentials, and references, the application is referred to the
department or school .for its recommendation concerning admission.
If the Dean of Graduate studies accepts the department’ or
school's recommendation, he then takes formal action to accept
or reject the application and to inform the applicant.
All applicants for doctoral study apply through graduate
admission offices in the separate schools except foreign
student applicants and applicants for admission to doctoral
study in programs in the Gollege of Arts and Sciences. These
two classes of applicants for doctoral study apply through the
University Office of Graduate Studies. In each case, the
office responsible for receiving the doctoral application and
supporting references and credentials refers applications which
are ready for review to the department offering the program for
- 106 -
Which application is made. Each department has a graduate
admissions committee which reviews applications in its field and
recommends the admission action on behalf of the department.
The school admissions officer receives the department's
recommendation and officially takes tne action recommended un-
less he discovers some technical difficulty with the applica-
tion or recommendation, Recommendations on doctoral applica-
i.
tions in the arts and sciences come to the Dean of Graduate
Studies. If the Dean accepts the department's recommendation he
then takes formal acticn ts accept or reject the application and
to inform the applicant. If the Dean. does not accept the |
recommendation he returns it to the department for a second
| review along with a statement of his reasons for not accepting
the recommendation. It is expected that the College of Arts and
Sciences will assume full responsibility for its doctoral appli-
cations in the mear future. _
All applicants for master's degree study except foreign student
applicants apply through graduate offices in the individual schools
and college. These offices refer completed applications and
credentials to the departments concerned. The admissions officer
receives the department's recommendation and officially takes the
action recommended unless he dise»vers some technical difficulty
with the application or recommendation.
All applicants who wish to apply to take a limited number of
graduate courses rather than an entire degree program may apply
for admission as "non-degree" students. Applicants for more
than 12 credit-hours cf such study are ordinarily nct considered, (
and students who wish to engage in a greater amount of study than
that are expected to apply to enter an appropriate degree program.
An occasional exception, of course, is made where the situation
calls for it. Non-degree applications are received and processed
through the graduate admissions offices in the separate schools.
In most schools departmental recommendations are sought. The
School of Criminal Justice and the School of Social Welfare,
generally do not consider or admit students to non-degree, study.
To qualify for admission to graduate study in any school or
college in the University at Albany the applicant must have
completed a paccalaureate based on the successful completion
of an appropriate four-year or comparable undergraduate program
in an accredited U.S. college or university or to have ‘completed
comparable preparation in a foreign college or university of
recognized standing. His academic record must be well above average
and show promise of success in advanced study. His references must
support his application and educational abjectives. Interviews
and credentials which may be required by 4 department or school
‘or college must support his application and attest to his
qualifications.
- Admission to graduate study in alk schools and colleges is
selective and the standards are moderately high. At the same
time the University has established no formal cut-off points
on academic records or test scores. Students who complete a
baccalaureate at Albany wh? wish to enter graduate study are
expected to have a general undergraduate academic average of 2.79
(4 point scale), at least this in the undergraduate major field,
and an even or improving record over the four years. Applicants
with a lower general average are required to show unquestioned
- 108 -
Strength in the major field and an improving record. Students
applying from other undergraduate colleges are expected to
present records of similar Strength which, because of variations
in standards among undergraduate colksges. may be reflected in
Somewhat higher or, possibly, lower academic indices. However,
when there is fairly firm evidence to suggest that the student
is likely to succeed with the program if admitted (G.R.E. scores,
Special circumstances - illness, etc, which affected earlier
performance, very Strong. last two years, and the like), the
applicant is accepted even though his academic record may not
meet the desired criteria, Similarly, where the evidence suggests
that he is not likely to succeed if admitted, the applicant is not
accepted even though his academic record may meet or exceed the
desired, minimal criteria.
The general procedural requirements are given in the State
University of New York at Albany Graduate Bulletin, 1969-70,
pages 26-32,
At the present time the University is able to admit every qual-
fied student who applies in each program offered in the University
except in the School of Social Welfare where new admissions are
limited to 75 new first-year graduate students. annually, Enroll-
ments in some departments may require some limitation on acceptances
in the near future. Psychology and educational administration are
cases in point, so far as present facilities and staff ae concerned,
The University is not able to provide financial Support for
all applicants who are admissible. Qualifications for Support
are separate from, and in addition to, requirements for admission
The schools and colleges have no formally established "conditional"
"on-trial,"” or other vestibule category of admission to graduate
study. However, a department may defer action on a dottoral appli-
cation if it wishes and recommend admission t© a master's program
and reach a final decision on the doctoral application after the
master's program has peen completed,
Applications . for admission to doctoral programs may be made
upon completion of the baccalaureate in all but a few fields.
Students wh have completed appropriate graduate studies at the
master's level may apply to doctoral programs and be allowed
advanced-standing or "credit” up to the equivalent of one-year's
work on a PkhiD,. and one and one-quarter year's work onan Ed.D.
In such cases, all: additional work must be completed. at Albany.
-There is.a machinery for the review of admission decisions in
the case of applicants who feel they have been denied admission,
when, infact, they should. have been admitted. Challenges of this
nature are referred first to the original office of admission
which ordinarily is able to explain the. action at least to, the
point where the applicant accepts the. decision. | If the applicant
does not accept the decision at this level, he may address a peti-
tion to the Committee on Admissions in the school or college which
has responsibility for the admission.
If the applicant wishes, ne may address a petition to the
University Graduate Academic Council and its sub-committee on
Admissions and Academic Standing after rejection by the individual
school or college Admission Committee or in cases where no such
committee exists.
- 110 -
Graduate Admission Problems
Application of basic standards and procedures and implementation of
the underlying philosophy associated with University selective admission
policy presents no major or: serious problem at this time. However, the
variety of groups for which a university must provide as it expands its
professional and academic programs always presents some problems in the
selection and admission procedures; -
1, Establishing and maintaining minimum University standards for
admission in all schools and colleges.
2. Distinguishing those elements of the applicants' backgrounds to
which common, unvariable criteria Should be applied and those to
Which differential criteria should be applied when considering
applications for admission to non-degree, to master's, or to
doctoral study,
3. Recruiting and selecting students who are educationally and
economically disadvantaged, and determining which of them have
the potential for succeeding in the graduate program, or for
acquiring the background and continuing in the program successfully.
The above are all problems which regularly receive attention but which are
worked on with varying degrees of intensity, depending upon the problem,
the situation in which it occurs, and ‘the urgency of its solution or
re-solution at that point.
_.7 lll -
lh. Geheral Studies Kasai ssion
The College of General Studies does not adicit students but enrolls
students in credit courses in a non-matriculated status. Students en-
rolling through General Studies must present documentation as to high
school graduation or the high school ‘equivalency diploma and be at
least 21 years of age. |
Initial enrollment is limited to one semester after which the
student's academic record and objectives: must ‘be reviewed at the regis-
tration each semester. The student may continue ina non-matriculated
status only to the point of completion of a maximum of six courses: or
eighteen credit hours. A ‘full- time program for 3 a person enrolled in
General Studies is nine hours a semester unless the individual is
employed full time in which case the maximum is kept between three
and six hours,
A person who has been academically dismissed from another school
or who was on probation at the time of his last registration ‘may not be
enrolled through General Studies until one year has elapsed.
Persons holding the pacealaureate degree may enroll through General
Studies for the purpose of taking undergraduate work, | |
It should be explained that the enrollment in the College « of General
Studies is counted as graduate if the student possesses a bachelor’ S
degree and undergraduate if he does not. Currently about one- -third of
the almost l, 000 students registered for credit courses in | General
Studies possess bachelor’ s degrees. Approximately 700 are 5 registered for
a?
non-credit courses and another 129 registered for independent study and
UNIVAIR courses.
Recent projections call for an increase in credit course enrollment
by 1500 within the next five years and almost a doubling of the
present 129 persons registered in Independent Study or UNIVAIR. On.a'.
ten year projection the credit enrollment increase will be by 2788
persons and for the Independent Study and UNIVAIR, 271 persons.
- 112 -
5. Financial Support |
_
The 1969-70 Financial Aids oe was increased by 23% in dollars and 11%
in the number of. awards and is shown in Table 8 . Both in terms
of the number of awards and the dollar amounts, it appears that SUNYA has
developed a fairly generous financial aid program for its students, with
the help of State and extramural funds.
While student support is a concern at all levels, it is particularly vital
to the continued growth and excellence of graduate programs. There has
been campus concern that there was too little graduate student support from
the State budget. and that the stipends were too low. The past year witnessed
Some improvement (after a two-year standstill) in both of these areas but
there is concern about the future.
During 1969-70, 36%, - of all graduate students in full-time Study were
Supported with full assistantships or fellowships from the regular: Univer-
Sity budget and approximately 10% from research and other grants. For
1970-71 the initial estimates are that these percents have changed little
(increased positions kept pace with increased enrollment); but the stipends
were raised substantially from an average of $2450 to $2800, equalizing
uncomfortable departmental and disciplinary differences in stipend level.
Concern about graduate student support looks even more justified, of course,
when the headcount enrollment percentages are calculated, Only about 12% of
the total graduate enrollment is Supported from University sources.
One problem is the large discrepancies in existing expectations, Some
departments claim that every full-time graduate student must be supported
in order to operate the program. Equally unrealistic, on the other hand, ©
is the apparent assumptian by some State budgetary officials that only
-~ 113 -
Table 9
SUNYA Student Aid Awarded for
Poried from July 1, 1969 to dune 30, 1970
(Federal fiscal year)
PROGRAM 1969-70 No. Awards Av. Award Total Dollars
LOANS
National Defense Student Loans 1$ 718 i$ 553,069
N.Y. Higher Education Asst. Loans 973 2,470,305
Other State Loans 961 17,300
Cuban Student Loans (NDEA) 2366 7,100
Law Enforcement Education Loans 1244 3¢, 300
Nursing Student Loans (NDEA) 565 10,175
F.,S.A. Short-Term Loans 62 70,219
$3,160,518
SCHOLARSHIPS
Regents College Scholarships
Fall Semester (est.) $ 175 $ 551,425
Spring Semester (est.) 175 546,175
Child of Vet. & War
Service Scholarships
Fall Semester 225 9,900
Spring Semester 225 9,900
SUNYA Alumni Scholarships 335 23,480
$1,140,880
GRANTS
N.Y.S. Scholar Incentive Award
Undergraduate Fall Semester (est.) $ 75 $ 237,825
Undergraduate Spring Semester (est.) 75 243,150
Graduate Fall Semester 153 92,750
Graduate Spring Semester 152 104,250
State University Scholarship (Grant) 200 92,500
Educational Opportunity Grant (Fed.)
Initial Year 985 60, 100
Renewal Year 720 206,750
Equality of Opportunity Grant (SEEK) 1314 431,000
Law Enforcement Education Grant 960 7,291
Nursing Scholarship (NDEA Grant) 600 4,800
SUNYA Graduate Fellowships 2560 395, 600
Other Graduate Fellowships (NSF,etc.) 2935 411,000
TOTAL GRANTS 52,287,016
EMPLOYMENT
College Work-Study $ 506 $ 363,325
SUNYA Student Assistants
Undergraduate 407 192, 788
Graduate 2070 574,800
Outside-Funded Graduate Assistants 2935 411,000
TOTAL EMPLOYMENT 51,541,913
TOTAL AID 21,698 $8,130,527
"needy" graduate students should receive Support. In order to support (
doctoral programs of high quality, the SUNY graduate deans have argued |
that the University budget should support 50% of full-time graduate —
Students, outside funding supporting another 25%. However, the outlook
for the near future is that student Support funds will be difficult to
justify in the budget, even though they have a high local priority.
- . io
Graduate Fellowships, 1970-71
Almost all fellowshipsholders are doctoral rather than master's degree
students. For the 1970 fall semester there are 192 fellowships awarded
to graduate students by SUNYA from University funding totaling $526 ,900
with an average stipend of $0750. In addition, there are 134 fellowships
awarded to SUNYA students from non-state University funds with an average
stipend of $2900 representing 4 total of $385,185. The total funds for
fellowships from all sources is $912,085.
Graduate Assistantships 1970-71
The University has available 70 teaching assistantship positions and
331 graduate assistantships through State University funding. This
represents a totel of $1,112,260 with an average stipend of $2800.
Graduate assistants participate in such activities as teaching dis-
cussion sessions, teaching lab sessions, assisting in research and in
assisting faculty members in activities related to instruction.
There are also 35 assistantship positions supported from outside funds
representing funds of $89,720 with 4 stipend of $2620. The total funds
for graduate assistantships is $1,201,980.
The total funding average for graduate assistantships and fellowships
from University and non-university sources represents $2 114,065.
Table 9 shows a breakdown of graduate student fellowship and assistant—-
ship support.
- 116 -
Educ. Psych. (90267) | 2
Natl. Foundation of Arts and Sciences 1.
jw
tot)
eal
Table 9: Graduate Fellowships and Assistantships
FELLOWSHIPS |
Number Amount ri
University Funded 192 526,900 ;
U.S. Office of Education 12
Library Science bs)
N.I.H. 9
N.S.F. Trainee 5
Research - (Math) 3
Ford Foundation - Criminal Justice 17
Two-Year Teacher - U.S.0.E. 2
HEW Soc. and Rehab. Service (Social Welfare ll
Rehab. Serv. Admin. 19
NDEA Title IV 34
Educ. Psychology (90267) 4 |
American Chem. Assoc. 1 ve
National Academy of Sciences ]
Non-SUNYA Appointed
N.S.F. Grant 2
Lehman Fellow 7
Regents Fellow 1
New York Police Department 1
134
TOTAL Outside 134 385, 185
32 912,085
ASSISTANTS
Equiv.
Number Equiv. Amount |
T/A TO ;
Full Asst. Univ. 285 285 790, 000
jalf Asst. Univ. 85 42.5 106,250 { > 1,112,269
University Temp. Service 4 4 6,010 )
jlalf Asst. Outside 5 2.5 ?
Full Asst. Outside 33 33 _ 99,720
482 436 1,201,980
Lote te 436 1,201,980
TOTAL 762 2,114,065
~ ASSISTANTS - Non-University Funding
_ Full Half
- ESSA 2°:
U.S. Office of Education 1
N.I.H. 2
N.S.F. 17 2
Air Force 4
Office of Naval Research 2 l
N.Y.S. Department of tiental Hygiene. 2
Res. Grant Public Health Service 2
6. Campus Unrest
Prior to 1969, Albany was a comparatively tranquil campus with few activists
and even fewer overt protests. While the amount of activism and the number
of issues seemed to increase & little each year, protest generally stayed
within reasonable proportions. During the spring of 1969, it became apparent
that student power, Black power, and anti-war activism were all gaining
increased support among Albany students. During 1969-70, the flurry of
activity was so great that the normal business of the University was disrupted
on several occasions. The following events are among those which removed
Albany from the ranks of the peaceful: protests over faculty promotion,
tenure, and contract renewal decisions léading to the suspension of classes
for two days of Dialogue; the Women's Liberation attempts to establish an
on-campus Child Care Facility; the conflict between the academic calendar
and Jewish Holy Days; drug arrests by local police; smouldering feelings
of racism which exploded into fist fights and damage to 4 dormitory dining
hall; a "Peoples' Park" demonstration which attempted to delay construction
and landscaping of two court-yards on the academic podium; constant anti-war
protests throughout the year, some directed against the University, as when
the Senate was asked to take an anti-war stand, and some directed outward
from the University as when thousands marched downtown from the campus to
protest the Cambodia decision and the Kent State killings; the student strike
and disruption of classes which was an aftermath of the Cambodia intervention
and the Kent State incident; and st least four Moloteyw cocktails thrown and
eight fires set resulting in $85,000 damage during the tense days in May.
The Albany campus is in a period of transition which has seen great increases
in social and academic freedom for Students and a virtual abandonment of
the former "in loco parentis" role of the institution. There axe tise very
few social regulations on campus which restrict student behavior, beyond
those which exist for the surrounding community. Academically, there are
fewer requirements and restrictions, and students have greater variety and
freedom of choice than ever before. Moreover, student participation in
governance has increased to such a great extent that councils and Staintttoes
sometimes have difficulty finding enough students, at least on the graduate
level, to fill all the voting membership positions.
In the space of one decade Albany has been transformed in almost every respect:
organizational structure, physical facilities, functional complexity, etc.
Moreover, the University has developed numerous adaptive mechanisms to cope
with student protest. The University by its very open and free nature reveals
its own obsolences and adapts to this new knowledge. The irony is that its
openness and adaptability should make it subject to abuse by some of its
own faculty and students. The history of Albany over the last decade belies
any accusations of repressiveness or rigidity.
What then are the institutional causes of student unrest at SUNY Albany?
The societal and international causes are now well discussed by Seymour
Halleck (1968), Kenneth Keniston (1968, 1969), and Eawara Sampson (1968),
among others. Therefore, the discussion below focuses on those local factors
which on the basis of interviews and observation seem to contribute to the
dissatisfaction and unrest at Albany. It should be observed that many of
these interact and overlap:
The sheer rate and magnitude of academic and institutional change
must be considered as 4 major contributor. Were: the change more
gradual and more controlled, the transition for the institution
might not have produced so much dislocation, disorientation, and
anomie on the part of both faculty and students.
One of the obvious changes is the increasing size of the institu-
tion. Large size has produced a less personal method iof operation,
made communication more aifficult, and increased the need for decen-
tralized administration. It is humanly impossible for many students
and faculty to share 4 personal relationship with a dean or 4 vice
president, much less with the President. The organization is so
large that the need for formal and structured communication has
increased while informal communication is more aifficult. Moreover,
the number and nature of decisions required means that administration
must be decentralized.
Another change is the snereasing, functional and structural com-
plexity which has hampered governance and communication. ‘Since the
University now carries on 4 number of diverse activities simul-
taneously, it is difficult for it to act as 4 community pursuing 4
common goal. A wide variety of student, faculty, and administrative
subcultures has developed which pursue different and at times even
conflicting goals. For the faculty's part the situation is best
described by one who commented, "The University is a fragile insti-
tution which depends for sts continued operation on the consent of
many groups. And in the past couple of years one group after another
has been withdrawing its consent." In the case of the students,
34 is clear that in the last few years the various "aollegiate" and
"vocational" subcultures have become less predominant while the
various "intellectual" and "nonconformist" subcultures have become
more noticeable. The rapidly changing Size and complexity of the
institution also produced problems of administration and governance,
as well as a yastly different student body and faculty.
Problems of administration and governance also contributed to some
of the unrest. The transition in administration and the existence
of an "interim" President was an important factor. In addition,
the President was constrained by the central staff and certain
SUNY-wide policies designed to maintain the integrity of: the SUNY
system during a period of stress.
There have been attempts especially during the past year to decen-
tralize much decision-making to the schools and departments. But
this met with mixed success partly because not all department chair-
men and Deans were prepared to accept this responsibility and partly
because the governance structures of some schools were not elaborate
enough.
The lack of experience with the new University Senate created some
uncertainty and adjustments which will continue to a lesser degree
in 1970-71. Now that certain policies and methods of operating are
Standardized, the Senate should function more effectively and effici-
ently.
The changing nature and diversity of the student body constitutes
an important factor in the unrest. Albany undergraduates on the
whole show an increase in those characteristics which researchers
have shown to be highly associated with protest and/or activism:
Socio-economic status, parents ' education, non-vocational academic
orientation, urban or downstate background, left political orienta-
tion, the number and percent of Black students, interest in the
social sciences, and high academic aptitude. In addition, it is
generally recognized that each entering freshman class exhibits
inereasing awareness and sensitivity and has 4 higher percentage
with prior experience in the use of drugs.
Moreover, 2 growing number of students seem alienated by tradi-
tional academic programs md arrive at the University seeking an
environment which will permit them to experiment and develop. Much
of the pressure for academic reforms (Pass-Fail, revised undergrad-
uate degree requirements, General College, Free University, etc.)
comes from this group of students. Moreover, the actions of a few
students during the past year tend to support those like Bettelheim
(1969) who maintain that, "Tere are today far too many students in
college who...are not interested in the intellectual adventure; the
knowledge which the faculty ‘can convey to them is not what they want.
What they do want, essentially, is group therapeutic experiences to
help them mature, to be secure, to find themselves. But since col-
leges are not mass therapeutic institutions, they disappoint the
students where their greatest need lies."
- 122 -
In addition, a 1969 study“ shows a sizeable proportion of SUNYA
students agreeing with negative statements about college life, and
13% of the sample was classified as "alienated." One might predict
increasing unrest with any increase in this percentage.
Perhaps the most outstanding change, however, has been the emergence
during 1969-70 of a nucleus of radical leaders or "strategists."
In this regard, the New Left Organizing Committee and the Strike
Committee have filled the vacuum created by the disappearance of
SDS on the campus.
If the number of alienated and radical students has risen, so has
the numher of faculty. By their public statements and writings a
few faculty show great feelings of alienation and bitterness and
actively support the radical students. As might be expected, most
of these are young faculty in the social sciences and humanities.
These facuity and students who identify with the new left view the
University and its curriculum as repressive, repulsive, and punitive,
or, at a minimum, irrelevant.
One of the greatest changes at Albany is the emphasis on public
service, research, and graduate'training. A problem accompanying
the rapid change and increasing complexity and diversity is the
apparent lack of loyality and commitment on the part of some faculty.
Many graduate and undergraduate students voice a great deal of dis-
satisfaction about the number of faculty who are unavailable. This
problem is sufficiently widespread that many faculty members are
also concerned, "One might cite various examples of the decline of
institutional loyality...developments which suggest that few faculty
members have any departmental loyalty or any sense of teaching and
scholarship as cooperative enterprise...Scholarship is plentiful
these days, but community is in short supply ."2
7. Finally, a factor contributing to the possibility of unrest at
Albany is that both students and faculty have more flexible schedules
and more time to devote to activist activities. The recent academic
and curriuclar changes have given most undergraduate students greater
freedom (independent study, directed readings, S-U grading, etc.)-
Moreover, the conditions of employment for faculty members have
improved greatly over the last decade and faculty not only teach
fewer classes, but also often have the assistance of graduate stu-
dents.
taruno Bettelheim “The Anatomy of Academic Discontent," Change, May-June
1969, 18-26. ”
23. Fredericks Volkwein and Joan R. Egner "A Study of University Bureaucracy
sn Relationship to Student Protest, Alienation, and Desires for Partici-
pation in Policy Making," U.S. Office of Education Project number 8-B-069 ,
May 1970, Chapter 3.
3kKendall Birr, "The Crisis of the University", an unpublished paper
written in response to the events of 1969-70 at SUNY Albany, June 11, 1970.
II. E. FACULTY
Perhaps SUNYA's greatest strength lies in the support for its faculty.
The favorable Support which SUNY has received during the past decade has
been instrumental in building and maintaining an excellent faculty.
SUNY and SUNYA Policy
Personnel Policies regarding faculty and non-teaching professional per-
sonnel emanate from the Policies of the Board of Trustees of State Univer-
sity of New York. An interpretation of these policies with specific guide-
lines was issued in the Handbook for Faculty and Staff published in 1968 by
State University of New York, Faculty Senate Personnel Policies Committee.
Additional information as to procedures at the local campus level, is
published annually as the Faculty Handbook, State University of New York at
Albany. Information about personnel policies (such as benefits, appointments,
tenure, greivances, etc.) can be found in the Handbook.
Changes in the Trustees Policies are usually suggested by the campus
through its State University Senator to the State-wide Senate to the Chan-
cellor and Trustees, Another route to Change comes from Suggestions and
problems as they are raised on individual campuses through more informal
Channels to State University Central Staff and in turn to the Chancellor
and Trustees.
Appointments. The criteria for appointment to academic positions are
generally understood to be the prerogative of the local campus at salaries
of under $18,000. It is the local policy that the doctorate is normally
required for all ranks of assistant professor and above. Outside evalua-
tions are sought for appointment to the sssociate and professor rank. Once
the position vacancy has been approved for recruitment, and the approval
of the department chairman and dean are received, the appointment is nearly
automatic. It is reviewed to see if it meets all the administrative criteria
such as the date that the position “is available, that the salary is within
the prescribed limits, that the necessary attachments in support of the
appointment are present, and questions are answered concerning moving expenses ,
special space requirements and like terms.
Table 10
SUNYA Faculty Salaries for the Academic Year 1970-71 (10 months )
Median Salary Maximum Limit**
"Leading" Professor 30 ,000 35,250
Professor . 20,108 — 28,200
Associate 15,442 21,100.
Assistant 12,505 16,450
Lecturer § ‘ 12,006 16,450
Instructor . 10 ,085 11,450
**Academic personnel on 4 12 month basis may receive up to 20% more.
Salaries. Academic appointments have upper limits imposed by State
University and the Division of the Budget. Administrative salaries fall
under the Administrative Salary Plan. “As can be seen in Table 10, current
salaries are quite favorable for the two semesters of the academic year.
Summer salaries are calculated as a percent of the salary for the previous
academic year and can be used by faculty members to supplement their normal
incomes:
1 week: 2.7% 5 weeks: 1%
2 weeks: 5.33% 6 weeks: 16%
3 weeks: 8% 7 weeks: 18%
4 weeks:10.67% 8 weeks: 20%
Faculty teaching summer salaries are limited to a maximum of 18% for
the seven-week session and 20% for the entire Summer whereas persons on
research grants are allowed up to 2/9ths of their regular salary. Some
faculty criticize these different policies as discrimination of research
over teaching. Buth the differences occur because summer salary formulas
are set by SUNY Central Staff and the Division of the Budget, and are not
negotiable on the campus level, except for visiting faculty.
One of the most striking features of the SUNYA salary structure is its
rapid improvement over a relatively short Span of time. This is best illus-
trated by the improvement in the AAUP Scale ratings for this institution
shown in Table 11.
Table 11
AAUP Scale Ratings For SUNY-Alb any
Average Compensation, by Rank
1963-64 To 1969-70
Associate Assistant
Year Professor Professor Professor Instructor
1963-64 C C C B
1964-65 c B B A
1965-66 B B ‘AU A
1966-67 B A A A
1967-68 B A A AA
1968-69 B AA AA AA
1969-70 A AA AA AA
- 128 -
Campus Total
Arts & Sciences
Humenities
Sccial Science
Scicnee & Math
Education
Business
Criminal Justice
Generel Studies
Litrar Sciznce
Nursins
Slice Affairs
Social Welfare
(746)
(191)
(106)
(154)
(160)
(43)
(12)
(3)
(15)
(14)
(32)
(17)
Table 12
First Year cf Froployment for 7ull-Time
Teachine Faculty by Schocl ani Division
- 1970 1969
104 75
23 1T
17 15
18 16
17 : 9
10 5
3 2
1 0
\ 0
8 2
3 3
) G
1968
102
re NHN fF OO
1967
80
20
1966
96
21
1960--65
171
1950-59
15
Pre~-1950
43
15
- 127 -
This rapid improvement has made possible the recruitment of a well
qualified faculty, 68% of which now hold an earned doctorate (see Table 13).
Moreover, SUNYA has been characterized by relatively low faculty turnover.
In 1968-69, for example, the total fullstime faculty being replaced, at
all levels, for all reasons (non-renewals of contract, voluntary departure ,
death, etc.) amounted to less than 11% and only about one-fifth of those
being replaced had tenure.
When new positions are added to replacements, 4 substantial portion of
SUNYA faculty are new to the campus. The rapid growth has added so many
new faculty that61% of full-time faculty have been on-campus less than 5
years and 38% have arrived since 1968. Table 12 shows this in more detail.
a i i a 2s i
_ lo9 -
Table 13
Number and Percent of Earned Doctorates
By Full-Time Teaching Faculty
(Excludes the campus school faculty) —
Fall 1970
Total Full-Time
Faculty #Dr's. %Dr's.
Professors 2ho 216 90 :
Associate 197 154 78
Assistant | 227 133 29
Instructors 82 1 1
TOTAL 746 504 68
Faculty load
No formal University requirement or regulation defines the teaching
load of a member of the faculty. In practice there are common standards
and expectations in the matter of load. They are reflected differently in
the various departments, depending upon the nature of the discipline involved
and the organization of the courses of instruction and research.
In general, each graduate faculty member is expected to provide instruc-
tional service and/or instructional-related service equivalent to nine cre-
dit hours of instruction each semester plus service on School and University
councils and committees. The snstructional service protion of the load
represents three three-credit hour courses 4 semester. Faculty members whose
snstructional service includes directing doctoral students in dissertation
research and writing teach fewer courses. No common formula for this doctoral
load factor has been developed for all departments in the School, and reduc-
- 131 -
Table 14
Distribution of Teaching Load of Faculty in Full-Time Instructional
Positions in Fall Semester, 1969-70 at SUNY-Albany
Departmental
Faculty
School and . No. Carried
Field of Study Total Full-Time in Credit Hours of Instruction Carried
Instructional
Pesitions Ol 2 3 45 6 FT 8 9 10 11 12 13 1h 154
Arts and Sciences . . :
Humanities 21h 161 eo 7.2 11 129 11 12 WF ow 22.°3 #5 43
See. Sciences 133 98 TO 0 4 0.0 2h 40 0 37 11 2 2 69.9 1
Science and Math 174 13h Whoa-qy Sf is 6 ah 6 6 7 3 1 2 oO 1k
iA & S Totals 522 39h e3 1.11 33 12 7 67 ef 18 92 26 ih 26 5 28
Business 43 33 10 0 0 00 4& 2 9g 23.0 3 0 1 69 o
Criminal Justice 10 9 oo 2 1-11 2 3 0 0 9 -g 0 0 0 o
Education | 169 TT 60 0 3 o4 7 3 6 3 6 5 5 3 2
General Studies = = qa 5 5 0.9 09 00 0 0 1 § 9 59 6 0 0
Library Science nh 10 00 0 0 00 3 0 O° 3 ‘9 2 0 0 9
Nursine . . 16 10 40 2 300 00 4 0 0 0 0 0 @ 4g
Public Affairs 7 37 eh 3 0 0 2 23 4p 2 1 1 £00 9 0 O Oo
Social. Welfare 18 15 > 0.2 1°09 9 2? 0 0 1 09 9 0 0 O YW
Campus Total 846 578 4301 16 43 15 13 100 36 27131 30 23 33 49 8 ho
- O€T -
- 131 -
tion in courses taught is at the discretion of the department chairman.
In most cases the faculty member would be relieved of one course. In
semesters where the dissertation load is heavy, 4 roid adjustment would
be made.
In addition to the instruction/committee load above, faculty members are
expected to engage in the usual scholarly activities of research and writing
and professionel services. Graduate faculty who take on additional research
duties, possibly with grant support, have their instructional load reduced
proportionately. However, arrangements must be made by the department to
offer the courses through other sources.
Adjustment ig made also in the load for administrative duties. Depart—
ment chairmen teach two courses 4 semester or the equivalent in most depart-
ments. However, in large épartments the teaching load ordinarily is one
course a semester or the equivalent.
Table 14 shows the distribution of teaching load for full-time faculty
by department in 1969-70. The data have some limitations because they do
not take into account any of the factors noted above.
SUNYA has purposely not created a "oraduate faculty" and an "undergrad-
uate faculty." With rare exceptions, only professors with doctorates teach
graduate courses, but they are encouraged to teach undergraduate courses 45
well. One Central Start study shows that 40% of the lower division instruc-
tion at Albany was provided by senior faculty and this compared to 32% at
Binghamton, 12% at Buffalo, and 15% at Stony Brook.
There is a danger that senior faculty's involvement in undergraduate
education may change in the future, however. There are several reasons for
this prognosis. ‘The institution is becoming graduate training and research
oriented, and faculty are increasingly hired and promoted on the pasis of
~ Lje<« -
their research expertise. The number and percent of doctorates on the faculty
i is increasing. They are attracted here by the modern research facilities,
doctoral programs, and graduate students. This trend is almost unavoidable
because there is less professional visibility in good teaching than there
is in good research.
Hopefully, campus concern about maintaining the quality of undergrad-
uate instruction will continue to prevent undergraduates from being isolated
from senior faculty. However, many departments (especially in the humanities
and social sciences) are turning to Teaching Assistants (TA's) to help with
the task of instruction in their lower division courses. In the past the use
of TA's has been discouraged, and only 10% of all graduate assistants could
be classified as TA's by the Office of Graduate Studies in 1969-70. TA's
are defined as having full or primary responsibility for a course or section.—
While graduate assistants perform a variety of administrative and semi-
professional duties, most at Albany assist the instructor in and out of the
classroom.
- 133 -
F. PLANNING AND BUDGETING
In an institution as complex as this one with a rapid rate of growth
and many commitments to 4 broad path of development, the budget is crucial
to the quality and quantity of the academic program and its support. The
SUNYA Budget is divided into operating and Capital Construction allocations.
The preparation of the budget is an ongoing process involving many steps, but
throughout the procedure the movement is from smaller units to larger ones
with the fullest possible consultation of the academic staff'and of the stu-
dent members of the Educational Policies Council, all in keeping with the
purpose of SUNYA as an academic institution. The results of this process
in the 1970-71 budget approved by the State Legislature have been extremely
gratifying.
1. Sources of Revenue
Approximately 87% of SUNYA annual operating expenditures is derived
through tax supported appropriation by the State Legislature. About 9% is
obtained currently from the United States Government through the Research
Foundation, and 4% from gifts and grants through the Research Foundation.
The financing of our capital construction program is dependent on First
Instance appropriation by the State Legislature. The income received by
the State for tuition and for residence hall fees is pledged initially for
capital construction purposes and is not available for specific campus use.
Such receipts are pooled centrally. for the University system. Allocations
from these receipts are not made on the basis of the amounts collected by
particular institutions. Consequently, this University's capital construction
program relies on external decisions by state government offices, the Central
Office of State University, the State Division of the Budget, and finally,
the State Legislature.
sm,
- 134 -
2. Analysis of present support.
During the fiscal year 1970-71, the operating Support level will enable
us to provide adequate instructional opportunities, significantly expand our
library holdings, and improve a limited number of specific program areas.
The pace needed to meet the Master Plan goals for introducing and maturing
graduate degree programs, however, may be too rapid relative to anticipated
financial support. The introduction of new degree programs in existing dis-
ciplines must be directly related to enrollment growth since this is the
basis for approval of new positions.
For the 1970-71 fiscal year we have budgetary support to staff instruc-
tional positions on a 1:13.6 faculty /student ratio. The instructional cost
per FTE student is $1,078. Our faculty support cost level is $6,850 per
fiscal FTE instructional position; this includes cost support positions,
graduate assistants, temporary service, supplies, expenses, and equipment,
as well as chargebacks for computing services, telephone and telegraph charges,
central duplicating, automotive costs, mail and messenger service costs,
Educational Communication Center costs, and costs of supplies withdrawn from
the central storeroom.
There has heen a rapid increase in extra-mural supported funds and this
is discussed in Section G: Research. A brief analysis of the capital con-
struction support is contained in Section H, "Facilities."
The prohlem of obtaining sufficient resources--faculty, facilities and
funds=-to keep up with the growth in student enroliment is illustrated by the
following two figures. Figure I illustrates, with proportionate scales, the
growth in Fall Full-Time-Equiyalent enrollment , on an unweighted basis, from
1967-68 to 1970-71, with the growth in Full-Time-Equilvalent faculty, available
non-residential space, and state appropriated funds for Education and General
-~ 13° -
Purposes (exclusive of funds from non-state sources, or funds for auxiliary
enterprises). As that figure suggests, 1968 was a relatively "good" year
for resources; all three of our primary resources increased at a rate faster
than the increase in enrollment. On the other hand, 1969.was a"bad" year,
as enrollment increased much faster than any of our primary resources. The
net result was that in 1969 we were proportionately worse off than we had
been in 1967, except for budgetary support. Another favorable picture is
apparent in 1970: our faculty increased, but at a significantly lower level;
the amount of available space actually decreased; but our fiscal support con-
tinued to rise. Our good fortune in obtaining funds is offset in part by
factors of rising prices and increased salaries, so that equivalent dollars
will not "buy" the same number of resources (this factor can be seen by the
fact that the increase in faculty--our largest expenditure outlay--increased
at a slower rate in 1970 than the total dollar increase).
The major resource difficulties are faculty and space. Figure Il illus-
trates the relative changes in available resources in 1968, 1969, and 1970,
if the relationships of resources to students in 1967 is considered to be
parity. In each year, dollar support is up, but faculty support is down;
available space shows a slight increase in 1968, but a steady decrease there-
after.
The problem of faculty resources is not simply a matter of the numbers
of students and faculty; it is complicated by changes in the student mix.
Thus, if our enrollment shows that graduate students are increasing at a
faster rate than undergraduates , the demands on faculty resources will be
greater than a simple factoring of total enrollments. To illustrate the
problem, a fourth comparison is shown in Figure II--that of the relationship
between faculty and weighted Full-time-equiyalent student calculation.+ As
~ 136.-
is apparent, the distinction was not great in 1968 and 1969, as the enroll-
ment mix did not shift very much. In 1970, however, there was a disproportion-
ately higher shift to graduate enrollment, with the result that the relation-
Ship of faculty to weighted FTE students drops farther from par than it had
} been in 1969, even though the relationship of faculty to unweighted students
improved in that year.
1 :
There are many different ways of weighting students by level of instruction.
This comparison is based on applying the factors of the so-called "Wells
formula," which was the guiding factor in the Master Plan cycle of 1968.
Thus, lower division FTE enrollments = 1.000; upper division FTE enrollments =
1.250; beginning graduate enrollments = 1.500; and advanced doctoral enroll-
ments = 1.875.
Comparison of unweighted Fall FIE enrollment
with FTE faculty, available non-residen-
tial spsce and state approprietions for —
Eaucation and General Purposes,
1967 to 1970. |
FTE Stusents —
Seuaag fear +44 +
of (Dowaaa e008
Fo
jz A0o
»
: @
12 “las
eo
|
2,000 * a
ae) Ce]
| 3}
8.008! 2\ 20 oO
gg
3 g
©
Sn ca
1520 q
_ J “| Os
; 7 ; gt J
&, 02)
s
6cs = ai 4 °
E a
b-) oS
5 18 a HOS
2 18 wn | 8
ae re es
feo! 4,
2 Ps
° S 3 r)
1967 1968 1969 1970
. Lesanio:
1S
110
1.0$
100
0.95
230
A385”
0.80
- 138 -"
FIGURE II
Comparison of relationships between
FTE student enrollment and
faculty, facilities and funds 7
1968-1970,
(1967 relationships = parity)
1968 : 1869 i376
IZGEND;:
Cy = Relationship of FIZ faculty to unweighted FTE students
| = Relationship of FIZ faculty to weighted FIE students
Ww
an = Relationship of non-residential space (in square feet )
to FTE students
» Relationship of appropriated funds to Education and
General purposes to FIZ students ;
Table |6
SUNYA STATE FUNDING HISTORY
ALLOCATIONS BY FUNCTION
1966-67
1967-68
1968-69
1969-70
1970-71
$1h 617,924 $18,956,000 $25,590 ,000 £29 852,000 $35,484,711
Reference:
1965-66
CAMPUS TOTAL $9 630,403
Instruction & Departmental Research h. 751,839
Organized Activities 41h 89h
Organized Research 201,416
Extension & Public Service 420 020 =Senerne
Libraries 1,104,765
Student Services 543,601
Maintenance & Operation of Plant 1,603 ,638
General Administration 758 ,661
General Institutional Services 251,589
Residence Halls (Aux. Enter.) 792,248
Student Aid Sa a a
Salary Adjustments 0 PRRs
Food Service (Self Supporting), stew nneene
Overtime Compensation 40000 wennnnnnne
Inconvenience Pay ES
Less ‘Savings: Regular -102 ,083
Less Savings: Spec. Economy
Adjustments
Allocated in prior Budget
Changes Recommended:
Workload
Improvement
New
Executive Budget Documents
7,100,851 9,174,000 12,668,000 14,572,000 17,866,177
317 ,480 307 ,000 43h ,000 638 ,000 788 , 337
362 ,157 489 ,000 555,000 664,000 730,164
175,492 158,000 248 ,000 264,000 230,990
1,482,716 1,810,000 1,982,000 1,928,000 2,471,745
869,044 1,149,000 1,349,000 1,571,000 1,960 ,871
2,122,250 3,150,000 3,775,000 3,927,000 4,037,568
571,011 723,000 1,001,000 1,247,000 1,449,457
425,697 1,013,000 639 ,000 855,000 1,034,504
129,591 914,000 1,366,000 1,710,000 2,388,221
112 ,135 271,000 297 ,000 301 ,000 328 ,677
576 ,089 85,000 0 -wneewnene tena rceet meter
awww meme 2,113,000 2,711,000 3,009,000
ance wwe cee meme 67 ,000 67 ,000
ewan ene seamen eae 47 ,000 7 ,QO0
~226,589 -287,000 350,000 ~650,000 --925,000
-4.87 ,000
1,38 ,165 =290,756 =1,118,000 ~1,471,000
14,179,759 18,665,2hh oh 472,000 28,381,000
4 072,320 3,934,000 3,324,000 4,299,000
3,602,722 2,778,000 3,039,000 045 ,000
390 ,845 971,000 176 ,000 221 ,000
78,753 109 ,000 33 ,000
- 6€T -
Actual and E
Table 17
stimated SUNYA Total
Enrollment (excludes Summer Session)
Headcount Enrollment
Fall Semester _ Actual
1966 7,094
1967 9,150
1968 10,302
1969 12,143
1970 13,240
Preceding
Estimate
6,400
8,467
10,785
11,937
13,201
Full-Time Equivalent
Enrollments*
Actual
6,592
7,546
- 8,608 |
10,175
11,419
Preceding Budget
Estimate
n/a
n/a
8,787
9,413
11,030
* FTE Enrollment Calculated by:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Dividing total number of undergraduate credits taught by 15.
Dividing by 12 to obtain beginning graduate or professional student
loads.
Full-time candidates for a doctoral degree are
regardless of credit hours.
All part-time doctoral candidates
l FTE.
counted as 1 FTE
counted as 0.75 FTE rather than
- 141°
Table 18
Recent SUNYA Staffing History
Number of Positions (FTE) and
Changes by Function . 1965-66 1966-67 1967-68 1968-69 1969-70* 1970-71
Campus Total 1,179 1,551 1,859 2,076 2,208 2,466
Instruction & Dept. Research
Teaching 351 510 577 653 698 810
Non-Teaching 96 161 222 302 280 340
Organized Activities 4] 33 34 36 54 59
Organized Research 17 21 28 29 36 40
Extension & Public Service . . 15 17 17 17 13
Libraries | 79 127 137 136 155 176
Student Services 86 118 126 134 141 155
Maintenance & Operation of Plant 263 308 406 408 397 385
General Administration 97 72 85 89 104 113
Institutional Services 16 51 78 100 154 165
Enterprises 127 135 149 172 172 2141
ee crete —
*Interpretation of the 1969-70 figures should be adjusted for the following changes: (a) 20 FTE for department
chairmen were transferred from the non-teaching. to the teaching category under I & DR.; (b) 36 FTE were trans~
ferred from I & DR to the General Institutional Services category (Educational Communication Center).
1967-68
1968-69
1969-70
1970-71
Table 19
Campus Space in Gross Square Feet
(combines rented and non-rented)
Academic Space*
1,841,561
2,119 ,518
2,369,518
2,229 ,118
Residence Space
1,085 ,623
1,294,490 |
1,294,490
1,412,850
*Includes space on Fuller Road and at Schenectady County Airport.
- 143-
3. Problems Facing Campus Growth ~ External Constraints
a. The problem of adequate operating support for new facilities: We have a
new plant, much more extensive than the old one. We have occupancy of facilities
much more intensive than was the case in old facilities. Our budget has increased;
but primarily in instruction and departmental research. At the same time, formulae
for calculating maintenance support have been modified downward. Aggravating that
problem is the fact that certain design features in the new facilities have led to
artificially high maintenance costs (i.e., heat loss from inadequate insulation) that
must be absorbed in a restricted budget area. This has affected the maintenance
problem of large public areas (lecture center, art gallery, performing arts center),
which in turn has affected use of the facilities. ¢
Furthermore, the new facilities, particularly performing arts, provide op-
portunities for a brand-new level of performance activity. But financial support
is required-~the expenses of printing programs, constructing scenery, etc. These
items were not sufficiently reflected in previous budgets; and they are items that
do not automatically respond to increases in student enrollment. They fall in an
area of the budget that has a lower priority than instruction and research.
b. We developed existing doctoral programs ata rate that seemed appropriate
to increases in financial support between 1964 and 1968. A level of expectation was
set, aS a result, for continued new program development ; it was reflected in the
1968 Master Plan. Since 1968, however, our rate of budget increase has deccelerated;
it will almost be impossible at present levels of support to continue the rate of
program development implied in the Master Plan while maintaining existing programs
at quality levels. a —
c. The combination of on-campus and off-campus housing for out-of-area students
is limited. Meanwhile, the commuting pool will not be sufficient to meet total
enrollment goals. In a few years this may begin to affect our enrollment expectatior
and consequently our level of budget support. Of particular concern is housing
for married students since this has a. direct influence upon attracting well qualifiec
graduate students.
d. As discussed in Section D, the level of support for graduate students is
considered to be low. This also affects the number and quality of graduate students
and becomes a more important factor as the graduate program becomes a larger portion
of the total budget.
ae, Other external constraints are discussed in Section I: External Relations.
4. Problems Facing Campus Growth - Internal Constraints
te |
a, The determination of priorities is probably the most acute problem facing
ug over the next several years. Basically, this involves the determination of |
which academic programs shall be supported which may be de-emphasized, and in some
cases, which may be abandoned. Internally, and within the state-wide system, 2
determined effort will need to be made to establish and implement an orderly
arrangement of priority programs. The Educational Policies Council, which
reports to the University Senate will play a role in this process at this
University.
b. Related to the preceding point is the fact that the faculty-student
ratio as a measure of needed support has come under increasing question from
all parties--campus, Central Staff, Budget Division, and Legislature.
c. We need a unified budget system to include extramurally funded support
in order to develop comprehensive fiscal planning, and in order to provide an
adequate management tool for Deans and Department Chairmen who are being responsible
for program accomplishment.
d. The system for projecting the resource needs of existing and new
programs is not adequate and priority decisions involving budget support needs
are difficult. Moreover, the approval of extramural "developmental” grants
to some departments has committed the campus to absorbing their new positions in the
regular budget at specified future dates. Care must be taken to avoid over-
commitments relative to anticipated support since the affects on other depart-
ments will be devastating if. their new positions become coopted because of the
commitments made in accepting developmental grants in other departments.
e. The process of effective campus management depends upon the development
of an information system which will provide appropriate information to those who
must make decisions. A Director of. Management Information Systems has been
appointed. So ge |
f. The utilization of faculty and @ measurement of their effectiveness is
becoming a concern as the Legislature, the State Comptroller, and other agencies
attempt to quantify this effort for the measurement and use of manpower resources.
' Internally, all of this is a very difficult problem. We need to place emphasis
on this type of analysis as it becomes necessary to adjust faculty assignments
in and among academic departments. . It. becomes increasingly important as academic
requirements have become much more flexible and it becomes ‘more aifficult to
forecast academic choices of students. . Serenerenns
5. Budget formuletion and approval
Actual internal preparation for a fiseal year's operating budget begins
15 months in advance of the beginning of the particular fiscal year in question.
A separate capital construction budget request must also be prepared, as well as
specific budget requests for a limited number of special programs to be requested
by the Central Office of the State University as state-wide programs.
The basic workload portion of the operatiag.budget is determined largely by
the application of approved formulas to the progected enrollments and building
programs. Funds-requested for "improvement" or "new' programs represent a
small portion of each year's budget request, with a total amount to be requested
restricted by an imposed target ceiling determined by Central Office of State
University. These specific processes of budget formulation involve the following:
a. The projected enrollment is determined through discussions with
the Long Range Planning Office of State University of New York, with the
“Master Plan serving as the base for the necessary computations.
- 145 -
b. Once the enrollment projections have been determined, Central Office
of State University of New York computes anc provides a workload ceiling.
The Central Office also indicates the maximum amount for the improvement and
new program phases of the budget.
ec. After being given whatever information is available, the deans
and department chairmen are asked to develop a budget. form with proper
justifications of what their financial needs will be. The requests
received from the deans and chairmen inevitably total more than the
amounts approved by the Central Office. (February, March).
ad. Through-discussions among individual deans and department chairmen
and our budget office personnel, budget requests are clarified, refined, and
in most cases, reduced. Additional and better justifications for improvement
and new programs are developed. (March, April). :
|
e. Our budget office then develops & generalized tentative budget
ace @ variety of alternatives so that decisions can be made more intelligently.
April). |
f. This tentative plan is then discussed by the budget committee of
the Educational Policies Council and usually by the Council itself.
g. The President discusses the proposed tentative budget with his
cabinet and makes decisions as to which alternatives will be accepted.
h. The preliminary budget is then prepared and sent to the Central
Office of State University and an all-day hearing is scheduled with represen-
tatives from that office. The budget committee of the Educational Policies
Council, which includes at least one student, and several of the deans are
invited to this hearing. (May, June). :
i. With consideration of suggestions resulting from this hearing and
after further discussions with the deans, department chairmen, and Educational
Policies Council, and the cabinet, a final budget document is prepared and sent
to the New York State Division of the Budget via Central Office of State
University of New York. (August).
j. Normally, the Division of the Budget schedules a hearing with
representatives from this University and the Central Office. Before and
after this stage, questions are frequently raised and additional information
provided. (September through November). : | |
k. The Division of the Budget prepares the Executive Budget for the
State, which includes the budget for State University and the budget for this
part of the State University. The budget is presented to the State Legislature
on or about February l. —
In addition to indicating recommended funding by function and by object,
the Executive Budget shows the recommended staffing allocations by function.
1. The Legislature adopts the Executive Budget with whatever modifications
are believed necessary. Even at this stage, a request for improvement and new
programs are sometimes reduced or eliminated.
6. Budget Execution
After the Legislature has approved the operating budget and made the
necessary appropriations, the following steps are taken:
a. A preliminary plan for distribution of allocations among schools and
departments is developed on a broad basis, by function and object, within
the constraints imposed by the appropriation legislation. Final decisions
are made by the President after consultation with his cabinet and the Educational
Policies Council.
b. Further refinement of the allocations is accomplished through discussions
and agreements with the appropriate vice presidents.
c. A final allocation plan is developed’on or about April 1, the
beginning of the fiscal year. These allocations include temporary service,
supplies and expense, and equipment. As part of the final allocations,
deans and associate deans are given discretionary control over approximately
half of the allocations made to their schools or divisions.
d. In addition to an indication of the funds available for expenditure,
the approved budget stipulates the number of positions that may be filled for
the various functions. The assignment of instructional and instructional
support positions is accomplished by the office of the Vice President for
Academic Affairs as he measures departmental requirements against man-power
resources and as he discusses the needs with the various deans and department
chairmen. . .
e. Actual expenditures are then projected for the entire fiscal year,
on a monthly basis so that the actual rate of expenditures as compared with
projections can be estimated and controlled.
f. Adjustments are made during the year as needed to compensate for
over-and-under spending, by implementing controls (through the office of
appropriate vice presidents) over the filling of vacant positions, the
scheduling of overtime work for non-professional employees, and other
financial transactions.
- 147 -
RESEARCH
Ii. G
Present Status
Research on the SUNYA campus is a rapidly growing enterprise. While
the total expenditures for research are small for a University, the present
increase during the past few years has been dramatic. As the graph shows,
there was a ten-fold increase from 1963 to 1970. This parallels the
general growth of the campus and the increasing emphasis on graduate
training. It Pe a tribute to the faculty members who have success-
or :
fully compéted /and won new grants in the tight marketplace of the past
three or four years.
; - a ZZ aa
tf eee \
1963-64 64-65 65-66 66-67 67-68 68-69 ~ 69-70 70-71 YEAR
estimated
i
4
FIGURE III
v SPONSORED FUNDING FOR Total Sponsored
cg he RESEARCH & TRAINING ' Fund
4.
re)
a
04 - Sponsored
a ew earch
2
3
tJ
ca
RS
|
While the total research funds for 1970-70 can only be estimated at
this time, in the year 1969-70, over 4.1 million support for research at
SUNYA came from a wide variety of sources with the largest amount of
support from federal agencies, followed by private foundations.
The largest single SUNYA sponsor of research is the U.S. Office of
Education, followed closely by all units of the National Institues of
Health and The National Sceince Foundation.
(The largest amounts of support from private sources have been
obtained from the Ford Foundation and the Kettering Foundation, in that order.
Working through the Research Foundation, SUNYA has developed a broad
program of awards to faculty, to encourage scholarly and creative activities
on this campus, Proposals submitted each October are evaluated by the
University Awards Committee, which reports to the University Chancellor,
His office announces the awards which have been granted each December.
SUNYA gives full Support and encouragement to research activities in
a variety of ways. The Vice President for Research is responsible for
the establishment of policies to increase the effectiveness of research
and its management and to develop a broad program of high quality research
throughout SUNYA, This office provides guidance in thé preparation and
Submission of proposals and must approve proposals which seek outside
Support,
The Office of the Vice President for Research is assisted by the Univ-
ersity Senate's Council on Research which was established in 1966, The
Council meets monthly during the academic year to advise on major research
trends and consider ways in which the Overall quantity and quality of
research on campus can be increased, to meet changing educational needs,
A Committee on Human Subjects assists the evaluation of extra-
murally-supported research projects dealing with human subjects.
In addition, a faculty committee on institutional funds operates to
advise the Vice President for Research on the dispersement of funds
derived from extramural sources,
Te provide speedy and accurate fiscal administration of research
funds here on the SUNYA campus, the Office of Sponsored Funds was
@stablished in 1967, and it works in coordination with the Office of
Management. and Plenniag and te Office for Research.
~ 149 -
Policies on Unrestricted Research and Conflict of Interest
Unrestricted Research: In 1966, the Board of Trustees of State University
of New York resolved that University research shall be unrestricted as to
public dissemination of the conduct, progress, and results of such research.
The Board took the above position to assure open research within the Univer-
sity, and to forbid secret contracts or. clauses that would restrict free
dissemination of research findings. The existence of this policy did
not deter concerned individuals from pressing for a policy to prevent any
"war-related" research at Albany. The topics researched and the uses of
research findings may be of more concern as the number of funded projects
grow.
Conflict of Interest: The SUNYA Council on Research prepared a position
paper on conflicts of interest which was unanimously accepted by Faculty
Senate in June, 1967. |
With respect to the federally-sponsored research, SUNYa endorses the
joint statement of the American Association of University Professors and
the American Council on Education, "On Preventing Conflicts of Interest
in Government«Sponsored Research at Universities”.
In addition, the laws of the State of New York provide a code of
ethics for State ‘employees. Pertinent excerpts of the laws are:
McKinney's 1955 Session Laws of New York
Excerpts from Chapter 1012, "Laws of New York 1965"
Public Officers--Appearances and Interests
Weaknesses
1. Lack of research funds from commercial sources indicate that-the
University has not yet taken advantage of all potential sources of funds.
-2. Federal and foundation support for the humanities is relatively lacking.
Strengths
1. Of major importance is the fact that each school and college now is,
generally speaking, provided with the most modern equipment available to
conduct its research and train its students. Included, for example, are a
4 MEV Van de Graaff accelerator for research in low energy nuclear physics,
a variety of electron microscopes, the Educational Communications Center,
and the 1108 Univac Computer. In addition, the University makes heavy use
of the Cranberry Lake facility for research in the biological sciences
and the Atmospheric Sciences Research Center with special facilities at
Whiteface Mountain in the Adirondaks, at Yellowstone National Park, and
at Schenectady County Airport.
2. SUNYA's national reputation for excellence is illustrated by the recent
award of four major institutional grants:
(a) The National Science Foundation awarded a $480,000 developmental
grant to the department of Mathematics.
(b) The department of Biological Sciences also received a grant from
the N.S.F. totaling $525,000.
(ec) The School of Criminal Justice received a grant of $251,000 from
the Ford Foundation.
(d) The Carnegie Corporation awarded Albany $108,000 for the develop-
ment of programs leading to the Doctor of Arts Degree.
3. State support for organized research is a SUNY strength. The following
specialized research centers have been developed at Albany and their support
amounts to over $600,000 in 1970-71:
Atmospheric Sciences Research Center
Center for the Study of Science and Society
Comparative Development Studies Center
Neurobiology Research Center
Nuclear and Radiation Studies Center
The Atmospheric Sciences Center, in particular, has gained a national repu-
tation in a relatively short time.
II. H. FACILITIES
Present Facilities
With respect to the physical facilities, much of the last decade has
been spent in building a new campus on the site of the Albany Country Club
and moving from the old downtown campus (135 Western Avenue) to the new
facilities as they became c@mpleted. The new $125,000,000 campus, designed
by Edward Durrell Stone, contains 13 academic buildings on a common Podium,
all connected by a continuous roof and an enclosed corridor. At the heart
of the academic podium is an underground Lecture Hall and Communications
Center. Rooms seating 45-500 students are arranged around a central court.
Fach is being equipped with the most modern audio-visual communications
devices. Arranged symetrically around the podium are four residence hall
quadrangles housing approximately 1300 students each.
As the master plan for the University underwent revision during the
1960's, and as anticipated legislative appropriations for capital construction
failed to materialize, it became apparent that Albany would not be able to
abandon the old downtown campus. During 1970-71 the downtown campus houses
the Graduate School of Public Affairs and the School of Social Welfare.
In addition, about 1,000 undergraduate and graduate students reside in the
older buildings downtown and attend classes largely on the suburban campus.
The two campuses are connected by a shuttle bus service.
Projected Facilities Development
Projections call for increasing existing academic facilities only on
the new campus, as additional space for growth is not present at the old
campus site. These plans call for the inclusion of a West Podium Exten-
stion (WPX) consisting of 319,413 net sq. ft. This WPX is currently under
active planning, will probably be under contract in 1971, and completed in
1974.
An East Podtum Extension will subsequently be built; present plans call
for it to comprise 507,462 net sq. ft. Other buildings planned include a
Planetarium, plus a Field House for athletics and recreational purposes, an
additional Service complex, 580 apartments of married student housing, prin-
cipally to Graduate Students, a Conference Center, a Research Park, Sculpture
Studio, and additional Dormitories, as required.
General Policy and Procedure
The general policy continues to be that construction will be accomplished
in accordance with the Master Plan which projects space requirements for a
period of five to six year in advance. These facilities which are required
are developed according to the Academic Master Plan; the number of classrooms,
seminar rooms, studios, laboratories, etc., which will be required. From
this is subtracted the inventory of space now on hand, ultimately giving the
new space which must be generated. The Comprehensive Campus Plan programs
these over a five year period so that if the plan is followed, buildings be-
come available in time to accommodate the academic needs.
SUNY construction financing provides more freedom and flexibility than
is enjoyed in most state systems. Construction bonds are sold and student
tuition payments are pledged to retire the bonds to fund construction of
academic facilities. Student room rent similarly is pledged for dormitory
construction.
Our plans, which spell out the composition of these various facilities,
currently must go to the Central Administration of State University of New
York for review and approval. Here they are checked for compliance with
standards and allowances for spaces, etc. After this approval has been
obtained it is used as the basis for a cost estimate which in turn is used
for budget requests. Capital construction budget requests are acted upon by
the Legislature toward the end of each fiscal year. Usually this occurs about
the lst of April, annually. All projects which meet with the approval of
the Legislature are then made known to the University, and building proce-
dures are then implemented. Our essential source of financial support for
capital construction comes from this source of Legislative approval. Very
small ancillary segments are sometimes obtained through grants, bubthe per-
centage is comparatively so trivial that we have not been able to construct
any Single building solely on the basis of grants.
Problems
The major problem that hampers our capital construction is that of
finance, which, as explained above, must be obtained through Legislative
approval. Although the Legislature has been extremely generous in build-
ing a $125,000,000 complex over the short span of six to seven years, they
have, during the past year or two stricken from the Budget several facil-
ities which we requested and which are greatly needed. Formula changes
in calculating space allowances have been applied, and they are posing
serious problems.
The present facilities are being used at over-optimum capacity in 1970-
71, and the University and the FSA have found it necessary to rent several
thousand sq. ft. of floor space off-campus. It is also estimated that
SUNYA will need to rent over 100,000 sq. ft. off-campus during 1971-72.
The most pressing need appears to be for academic space. As a con-
sequence, academic facilities have received a high priority in the construction
budget, and student housing has a low priority.
With specific reference to housing, the current capital construction
program will have provided 6,026 beds by the fall of 1971. Unless further
residential construction is approved, we must rely heavily upon off-campus
housing facilities to meet our Master Plan enrollment goals.
Some normal problems have arisen because of the complexity of the
planning and construction process, especially the matter of "lead-time".
When most of‘the present facilities were planned, the Albany campus
was projected to be about 80% undergraduate and about 20% graduate.
Subsequent Master Plans shifted the emphasis toward graduate training and
research, and a 50-50 graduate-undergraduate ratio. Hence, the amounts and
types of space to be utilized for research, graduate students, and faculty
offices have not been adequate, resulting in expensive renovation of some
new facilities within a couple of years of their completion. A related pro-
blem has been that new department chairmen and faculty sometimes have dis-
agreed with the judgements of their predecessors regarding the planning and
development of new facilities. Future capital construction, of course, is
being designed with more research and graduate training in mind.
CONTENTS
Introduction
Purposes | page HI
Organization and Governance page H3
Students page H7
Academic Program page Hl1l
Faculty page H22
Resources page H27
Budget page H34
Teaching _ H42
Fine and Performing Arts page H50
Interdisciplinary Efforts page H54
INTRODUCTION
This report of “how the humanities are faring at Albany," based on
information provided by chairmen, faculty, and administrators, reflects
the situation as seen by a dozen members of the Division.
The report is historical. Although we have modified its thrust in
several places to acknowledge recent changes, it will be even more out-
dated by February than it is in November.
Most data in the report are from academic year 1969-1970, That
year was peculiar, with its novelties of stringent financial restrictions,
shrill student demands, and administrative changes; it was also typical,
with its exhilarating and often frustrating turbulence.
Our emphasis on “the Division" rather than on individual departments
led us to several issues regarding relationships with the wider univer-
sity community, issues that are no less important for being familiar.
These include: criteria for performance evaluation and evidence of promise;
allocations policies; the apparent dominating influence of enrollment data.
Within the Division of Humanities, the complementary facts of depart-
mental "autonomy" and lack of specific divisional goals may be a strength
(disciplinary allegiance, variety) or a weakness (provincialism, fragmentation)
These threads, and other specific issues in the report's ten sections,
mirror the growing pains of an adolescent university. If such issues were
excluded, the gist of the ten sections would be something like this: Our
purposes are laudable but vague. Our organization is departmental. Our
» tf
students are quite good. Our academic program is for the most part standard
fare, and evolving. Our faculty is largely new. Our library is improving.
Our budget never seems large enough. Our traditional emphasis on under-
graduate teaching appears threatened. Our arts departments are not being
subsidized as much as they had hoped to be. Our ventures in "interdiscip-
linary" studies are significant but small. Overall, we are changing as we
mature; few patterns are sufficiently distinct to let us discern, from
inside the Division, cause for grave alarm or confident satisfaction.
PURPOSES
In the Campus Academic Plan for the State University of New York at
Albany 1968-75 (p. 5), we find this statement of purpose: "Universities
today consider as their basic function and obligation, the preparation of
the student as best they can to meet an unknown future. The student is
involved in the process of inquiry rather than being the passive recipient
of established knowledge. The University Center at Albany is firmly com-
mitted to the task of creating an environment in which emphasis will be
placed on the growth of the student as a total human being.” Although
this statement presents the goals of our entire University Center, the
final sentence, and especially the concluding words of that sentence,
"emphasis will be placed on the growth of the student as a total human
being,” are especially applicable to a statement of the goals of the
Humanities Division within the University.
It is interesting to note that not only was this the traditional goal
of education in the Greco-Roman world of the second century B.C., a goal
called "Humanitas," but that many today who have given thought to the
problem have arrived at a similar conclusion. For example, Archibald
MacLeish in an article in the Saturday Review, July 13, 1968, entitled
"The Great American Frustration" concludes: "There is a need ... to make
the end of education the preparation of men to be men, and so to restore
to mankind--and above all to this nation of mankind--a conception of
’
humanity with which humanity can live.” And Glen T. Seaborg, Chairman
of the United States Atomic Energy Commission, has said recently: "Today
we seem to be in the midst of those turbulent times preceding new human
advances .... . And insuch a period the instruments of this self-
examination and reevaluation, to which we must turn with more emphasis,
are the humanities. It is through our humanistic studies and activities
that we can re-explore--or explore in greater depth and with more meaning--
- H2 -
What we are, and decide with more assurance what we wish to become. The
humanities are the mirror we hold up to mankind--a mirror through which
we can examine the mind and soul as well as the body of man."
Furthermore, answers to a questionnaire presented to all departments
in the Division of Humanities indicate a rather strong agreement with the
concept that the purpose of humanistic Study is to help us to become more
fully realized human beings. Some of the departments' responses to the
question, "What do you take to be the "purpose (s)' of the humanities at
Albany?" follow:
1. "To make the student aware of the varied responses that men have
made to being human."
2. "To perpetuate and promote a sophisticated understanding of the
human situation in times present and past. . ."
3. "To explore the potential of Man through a critical study of
values, societies, institutions, and art of men, with an emphasis
on men as thinking beings capable of choice and responsibility."
4. "To develop the student's understanding of man and his nature."
5S. "[The purpose of the] humanities defined in divisional terms
[is] self development oriented toward aesthetic and rational
values."
Although it should be acknowledged that there are some today who
believe that the purpose of the university should be exclusively rational
and intellectual, the greater number by far who have given thought to this
problem seem to support the position that the goals of a university, and
especially of a Division of Humanities within the university, must include
other values also.
- H3-
Socrates and Plato, Panaetius and Cicero articulated these "other
values" that help to make a person more truly human. Achievement of
"Humanitas" requires the development and refinement, along with the
intellect, of feeling, of the artistic sensibilities, and of a moral
nature. The humanities continue to be the primary resources for the
exploration of man's heritage in all of these areas. The Division of
Humanities makes available teachers, scholars, subjects, courses, and
programs that can lead the student to these resources.
ORGANIZATION AND GOVERNANCE
The Division of Humanities is part of the College of Arts and
Sciences, one of the academic units of the University Center at Albany.
The College, in 1969-1970, was administered by a Dean who, like
the Deans of other schools within the University, reported to the Vice
President for Academic Affairs. The College itself was divided into
three Divisions (Humanities, Social and Behavioral Sciences, and
Mathematics and Science), each administered by an Associate Dean.
The Division of Humanities now consists of 12 departments (Speech
became three distinct departments in 1969, and a Department of Judaic
Studies has been inaugurated in 1970). The present 12, listed by
numbers of enrollments at all levels and by size of faculty (excluding
Graduate Assistants), are, for fall 1969-1970:
Department Total Student Faculty
Enrollment
English 4,202 ol
Philosophy 2, 668 19
Romance Languages 2,419 42
Art 1,504 16
Music 1,249 17
German and Slavic 859 24
Theatre 459 12
Rhetoric and Public Address 447 9
Speech Pathology and Audiology 417 11
Comparative Literature 323 5
Classics 274 8
(Judaic Studies )
The absence of History, which is part of the Social Sciences, and the
presence of Speech Pathology and Audiology, with a clinical, pre-—
professional curriculum, are notable. The Separation into two depart-
ments of the Department of German and Slavic, approved in 1969-1970,
has been delayed by the death of the prospective chairman of Slavic
Studies.
The departments operate independently, proceeding for the most
part in accordance with the traditions-ef-the-discipline as understood
by departmental policy-shapers. Some departments Spread responsibility
for policy widely among faculty and students; others centralize decision-
making in the Chairman, The number of departmental committees--some
nominal and some authoritative, some with and some without student
participation--is growing as departments scramble to catch up with
the complexities triggered by rapidly increasing enrollments.
nr,
- H5 -
The nature of the departmental chairmanship has changed fairly
recently. Until 1968 the position was a “permanent" one. Since then,
chairmen have been appointed, after consultation with the departments,
for three-year renewable terms. Formal procedures for reviewing chairman-
Ship were inaugurated in May, 1968.
The Division has just gone through a series of changes in departmental
leadership. At the beginning of academic 1969-1970, three departments had
acting chairmen, and two others had chairmen serving their first year in
that position. Five departments were seeking chairmen. In the fall of
1970-1971 there were five new chairmen in the Division; one is his
department's third acting chairman in three years.
As the Division has grown, the departments have concentrated on
equipping themselves to catch up with current enrollment and to meet
needs projected two years ahead. Curricula have changed, graduate pro-
grams have been inaugurated and strengthened, new and modified programs
have been introduced to meet the changing needs of larger numbers of
Students.
Although the departments’ separate needs and aspirations have
fostered independence, the Division is organized to consider matters
of common concern. Its Committee for Academic Development (until 1970-
1971 appointed by the Associate Dean to meet at his call) has, in the
course of two years, discussed how to inaugurate a Judaic Studies
program, the Comparative Literature program, and the possibility of
Starting a program in Linguistics, The Associate Dean appoints respresent-
atives to various standing committees of the College of Arts and Sciences,
such as the Committee on Faculty Personnel.
The chairmen and the Associate Dean, the Division's administrative
officer, meet regularly. Various requirements, complaints, rumors, and
~ Ho -
information are exchanged and clarified; recommendations to the Dean and
Vice President are discussed; month-by-month administrative detail takes
up much of the agenda at these meetings. At times "The Administration,"
at all levels, seems to be considered an adversary. Especially in the
notable absence of by-laws for the governance of the College, the Divi-
Sion of Humanities has had to respond for the most part in an ad hoc,
crisis-reaction manner to fluctuating faculty, student, departmental, and
administrative desires. Most responses have been at the departmental level.
The Associate Dean has represented the Division on the Executive
Committee of the College, which has been made up of the three Associate
Deans and the Dean of the College. Chairmen are responsible to the
Associate Dean, and he has been responsible to the Dean of the College,
who in turn reported to the Vice President for Academic Affairs. Chairmen
and faculty have been known to by-pass some stages in this theoretical
hierarchy; vigorous steps are being taken to assure the following of
normal channels of communication.
While the Division's departments have been expanding and consolida-
ting their independent programs, relatively little effort has been made
to develop and implement policies identifiable as those of "the humanities."
Uncertainty remains, for instance, about what kind of decisions above the
departmental level deserve consultation with faculty and students. The
matter of internal governance and organization is especially noticeable
this year because of the absence on leave of the Dean of the College.
Each Division is operating autonomously with regard to its internal affairs.
The Associate Deans, acting as the Executive Committee for all-College
matters, meet every second week and report directly to the Vice President
for Academic Affairs. The Council of the College (consisting of all the
Chairmen in the three divisions, plus six faculty members elected some
time ago) continues to deal with matters affecting all three divisions.
-~H7 -
The Vice President is available to resolve differences over budget,
personnel, or other matters, should they arise.
The "autonomous" operation of the Division in 1970-1971 has led
to closer scrutiny of its internal governance procedures. The Committee
for Academic Development will soon be elected by the Division's faculty
from departmental nominees, and will consist of three tenured and three
untenured faculty and three students, with no two members from the same
department. This committee will not deal with matters direct ly affecting
the budget.
Summary: The Division of Humanities has gotten along satisfactorily,
during recent years of rapid growth, with a minimum of governance apparatus.
During this period individual departments have been building their programs
more or less independently. Coordination, where required, has come from
the Associate Dean acting in consultation with the chairmen. Significant
changes in governance are being made this year.
STUDENTS
The Division of Humanities at Albany has grown remarkably. The number
of seniors enrolled in major srogeai for instance, has increased from 277
in the fall of 1965 to 557 in the fall of 1969. Graduate enrollments have
increased, also, aS new programs have begun and expanded.
I. Undergraduate 7
Undergraduates at Albany think of themselves as a highly select group.
Benjamin Fine's Profiles of American Colleges for 1969 calls Albany's
admissions procedures "highly competitive." Excluding the special Educa-
tional Opportunities Program, the 1218 freshmen who registered in September,
1970, came from 3711 who were accepted out of 8701 who had applied by l
February 1970.
-~Hg -
Entering freshmen present impressive credentials, In the fall of ¢
1970 the mean high-school average of the resident freshmen was 91; their
mean (New York State) Regents’ average was 91, and their mean Regents'
Scholarship Examination score was 224 (out of a possible 300).
The Division of Humanities attracts, we presume, a cross-section of
the entering freshmen. Six-hundred-ninety-nine out of 969 members of the
class of 1972 have College Entrance Examination Board scores in their
records. The 239 of these on record as having chosen to major in ‘the
humanities averaged 1176 (out of a possible 1600) on their verbal-
mathematical combined scores. The 260 in the social Sciences averaged
1161; the 200 in mathematics and science averaged 1212,
Many of the Division's eventual graudates. have transferred to Albany.
In the fall of 1968, for instance, 38 per cent of the new transfer students
Chose to major in the humanities--the same proportion as elected the social
Sciences. Of the graduates in English and Spanish, for instance, between
July 1968 and July 1969, about one-third had transferred to Albany. Nearly
half of the graduates in Russian, and eight-ninths of those in Philosophy,
were transfer students,
Of 337 declared juniors (who entered as freshmen) choosing to major
in the humanities as of the fall of 1970, 177 (52.5 per cent) had indicated
that inclination in September 1968. The percentage following through on
their initial inclination in the social sciences was 45.6 per cent, and in
the sciences a high 89.1 per cent. only 1.2 per cent of those now in the
sciences had originally indicated a firm interest in another division,
whereas 16 per cent of those now in the Humanities "left" the sciences
and 10.4 per cent "left" the social sciences. Nine per cent of those
(from this group of juniors) now in the social Sciences had originally
indicated a firm interest in the humanities and 20.6 per cent in the
sciences.
~ HO -
Many of Albany's undergraduates seek certification for secondary-
school teaching. In the class of 1964, 212 out of 217 majoring in
humanities departments were in the teacher-training program. The pro-
portion of humanities majors in this program declined to 318 out of 465
in the class of 1968, and is estimated to have decreased gradually since.
Much of the recent increase in majors in the humanities has been in the
"general" program.
The "quality" of Albany's students in the humanities after they
have completed their major is indeterminable. There are few records
regarding jobs obtained, distinctions and awards received, graduate
schools attended. About 70 humanities students listing Albany as their
undergraduate institution did take Graduate Record Examinations between
July 1969 and April 1970. Individual high scores, by department, ranged
on the verbal section from 770 to 580 (out of a possible 800), The range
by department of high scores on the various advanced sections of the GRE's
was from 770 to 640. The average of all verbal scores was just over 600;
the average on the advanced sections was just over 570.
These figures, and the CEEB data, seem to bear out subjective evalua-
tions of the students like "good" but "passive," "industrious" but"not
brilliant" on the part of many faculty. There are undocumentable hints
that more students each year think and write better, and contribute more
intelligently in class discussions.
II. Graduate
Graduate admissions procedures vary. Master's candidates are screened (
by the College of Arts and Sciences and by the departments, while doctoral
admissions are administered by the Office of Graduate Studies and the depart-
ments. Planned changes in this dual system have not materialized, and should
be further investigated.
Graduate students may engage in either degree or non-degree study.
Those in master's degree programs seek either a "general" degree or
permanent certification for secondary-school teaching.
Applicants accepted in 1968-69 for the largest master's degree program--
in English--had roughly a 3.0 (B) average in their four-year undergraduate
careers. Twenty-six had graduated from Albany, 34 from other schools in
New York State, and 24 from schools outside the state. The 84 admitted
were chosen from 121 who had completed the application process. In the
Division's smallest program, Classics, eight of ten applicants were
admitted. Their mean undergraduate average was about 3.1. Two had grad-
uated from Albany, five were from New York State, and one was from out of
state. The Division as a whole accepted 230 out of 290 applicants for
degree programs; their four-year average was about 3.0; about 30 per cent
graduated from Albany, 40 per cent were from the state, and 30 per cent
|
|
|
from out of state.
The folders on file in the Office of Graduate Studies for students
admitted to and considered “active” in doctoral programs in the humanities
provide information about admissions and give some hints about the kind of |
students in the program. Of 48 in the program in English who took the tests,
46 scored above 550 on the "verbal" Graduate Record Examination (21 scored
over 680). Of 37 "verbal" scores in Romance Languages, 19 scored below 550
and four above 680. Many of these candidates were not native speakers of
English. Of ten in Classics, four were below 550 and two above 680.
- Hil -
Graduate Record "advanced" Examination sco.es were uniformly good.
More candidates scored over 680 than below in every field; the mean for
311 82 takers of the advanced tests in the Division's areas was 671.1.
Summary:
In general, students at Albany vary from satisfactory to very good.
Undergraduates score at about the 63th percentile level nationally (if
the CEEB combined total of 1200 can be reckoned so closely, and if those
with CEEB scores in their records are representative). Candidates for
master's degrees appear, from their "B" averages, to compare with Albany's
petter undergraduates. Students in the doctoral program (who took GRE
tests) appear well prepared for advanced study.
ACADEMIC PROGRAMS
The academic program in the humanities involves both undergraduate
and graduate instruction. This section sketches the programs of the
Division, highlighting their variety, and pointing out their size and
scope, and emphasizing the Division's growth and change in recent years.
Division of Humanities: Departments and degrees.
* = Teacher Education program available; [ ] = year PhD scheduled
to begin (from 1971-1972 Campus Budget Request); PhD colum indicates in-
augural year of, and fall 1969 enrollment in, the programs.
Art BA
history MA
Studio MA
Classics PhD 1967/10 —
Latin BA* MA
Greek BA
Comparative
Literature BA MA , °[1973]
English BA* MA PhD 1963/30
German and
Slavic
German BA* MA PhD [1971]
Russian BA* MA [1973]
Music BA [1975]
Philosophy BA MA PhD 1970
Rhetoric and
Public Address BA
Romance Languages PhD 1968/0
French BA* MA PhD 1964/12
Spanish BA* MA PhD 1966/15
Italian BA* MA [1973],
Romance Lin-
guistics [1974]
Speech Pathology
and Audiology BS* MS [1971]
Speech-General BA*, MA
Theatre BA [1972]
Dramatic Art MA
1Ttalian PhD with Binghamton
-not available after June, 1972
A Department of and Program in Judaic Studies begins in 1970-1971.
A major in Inter-American Studies is available.
I, Undergraduates
The Division of Humanities has been widening its opportunities for
Choice among major Specializations for undergraduates. The table below
Shows (a) the number of seniors recorded as enrolled in major programs in
the departments since 1966, and (b) the total in all four classes majoring
in or indicating intention to major in each area.
a)Fall semester b)Fall ‘semester total
senior majors four-year declared
1966 1967 1968 1969 1968 1969
English 161 231 271 255 704 713
Romance Languages 85 116 113 116 468 361
German & Slavie 21 30 29 395 103 102
Philosophy 2 13 il 21 26 i
Art 3 14 21 A5 79 119
Theatre bs) 12 14 30
Music 1 6 7 25 35
Speech Path. & 8 23 19 22 21 96114
Audiology
Classics 12 17 16 13 32 32
Rhetoric & Public 1 3 3 11
Address
Speech - General 7 18 25 12 25 39
Comparative and
World Literature
Judaic Studies
These figures reflect changes in departmental names, and the addition of
new programs-~and they are based on registrar's and advisers’ informa-
tion which is sometimes incomplete. But they are accurate enough to
suggest the growth of the division that enrolls more majors than either
of the other divisions in the College of Arts and Sciences.
The Division's undergraduate major curricula offer flexible paths
toward degrees, including opportunities to study abroad. The Division
cooperates with the School of Education in preparing students to teach
in secondary schools; it offers one program in the "professional" cate-
gory; and its courses attract many students majoring in other divisions and
schools.
a a Nae ae se ae oe See a ee ee ee
- H14 -
Albany has a distinguished tradition of preparing secondary-school
teachers in their disciplines, and as a University it continues to offer
programs leading to certification. Students electing this option replace
elective courses (within their major field) with supplementary courses in
the field; they also take a professional sequence in the School of
Education.
The program in Speech Pathology and Audiology leads to a Bs degree and
certification of professional competence. The department closely controls
the sequence of required courses, limits most students’ choice of second
field courses, and also counsels prospective majors regarding their potential
Success in this field. The major in studio art might be considered
"vocational" by some; students electing this major do not follow a required
"track," however, and must undertake substantial work in art history. Music
offers "Performance" as a possible emphasis within the flexible major, and,
like Theatre, makes possible a second field for its majors within the
department.
In general, the departments emphasize broad familiarity with the
traditional matter and manner of their disciplines, and offer many combina-
tions of courses that will lead their students toward this goal,
The programs in foreign and classical languages tend to specify the
actual courses students must take to qualify for a major in the departments.
Proficiency in the language is: developed in course sequences; familiarity
with appropriate literature is part of the programs. Students majoring in
French, German, Italian, and Spanish are encouraged to spend a year studying
abroad. The various departments have insured attention to important matters
in their disciplines by requiring selection from 8roups of comparable courses,
English, French, German, and Spanish offer special sequences leading
to degrees with honors. The programs are selective, and require three
special courses. English Honors becomes the student's second field, which
demands twenty credit-hours of special course work and an independent
project in conjunction with the senior year course. Candidates in German,
French, and Spanish take twelve credit—-hours of special course work (within
the credit hours required for the major), and write a senior honors thesis.
The Departmental Program concept, offered by the English, Classics, and
Comparative Literature departments, and in the planning stage elsewhere in
the Division, allows interested entering freshmen to begin their BA degree
under the auspices of a department instead of being advised by University
College. In English, the program assumes that early immersion in a single
discipline will stimulate questions and lead the students, with close
guidance, into other disciplines. Admission is not selective; four double-
load courses in the first two years are the core and springboard of the
program in English.
Throughout the College, every student must select a second-field sequence
to complement his major specialty. The requirement specifies 18 to 24
credits and the proportion of advanced work to be undertaken, but leaves the
content of the second field to the major department. It is possible to
design a sequence that. serves a particular student's needs, talents, and
interests. Lists of cross-disciplinary combinations of courses have been
compiled by the English Department; some departments prefer to encourage
second-field courses within a single discipline.
Newly approved "Nags" designation courses allow students and faculty to
design and schedule courses whose matter falls outside normal departmental
»poundaries. This carries further a concept begun with "Humanities" courses,
and adds the opportunity for a student to design a project, get the support
- H16 -
of a sponsor on the faculty, and have his proposal approved for credit by
the Honors and Independent Study Committee of the College. These experiments
are being watched closely by their advocates, who want to acknowledge the
importance of students’ individual interests, and by critics, who are wary
of slipping towards "giving credit for anything."
The University's study-abroad program has’ sent 124 students to Nice,
Guadalajara, Wurzburg, Rome, and Madrid in 1970-1971. It sent 125 students
to summer language sessions at other locations in 1970, and supervised 24
Theatre Department students in Great Britain during the summer. Now that
funds are becoming available (for the full-year programs) so that in many
cases the total cost of going abroad to Study will not exceed the expense
of living on campus, we expect more and more qualified students from all
departments to compete for the opportunity. Still small, the programs are
now under close study; the Division foresees study abroad becoming one of
its significant strengths.
Until 1970-1971 all undergraduate degree-candidates in the College of
Arts and Sciences were required to take (as part of their general require-
ments) English Composition, nine additional credit hours in Humanities, and
(for the BA degree) a year's "advanced Study" in a foreign language. Many
class sections in various departments served the demands caused by these
requirements--although no one knows just how many students not majoring in
a subject took courses as electives and how many were fulfilling requirements.
This distribution pattern has now been replaced by paths to degrees
that require only a departmentally determined major program, a coherent second
field, and a minimum number of total credit hours. The effect of this change
on the Division is hard to gauge. Some speculate that the loss of students
anxious to avoid the Division will be offset by those who will be happy to
avoid the sciences and social sciences.
That enrollment patterns will
change seems likely, but just how remains to be seen.
Il.
Graduate
There are graduate programs in the Humanities at both the Master's and
Doctorate levels at Albany.
A.
the
work including a graduate research seminar or thesis, and a comprehensive
examination in the candidate's special field. There are exceptions and
substitutions in some programs in the Humanities--like the requirement for
a one-man show for the MA in studio art.
Master's
Enrollments in master's degree programs at Albany in the Humanities in
fall semester of 1968 and 1969 were at the following levels:
Art
Classics
Latin
Comparative
Literature
English
Romance Languages
French
Spanish
Italian
German
Russian
Philosophy
Speech :
Speech Correction
Dramatic Art/
Theatre
Programs leading to the master's degree require 30 credit hours of course
fall 1968
10
10
8
fall 1969
26
10
19
17
There were 127 candidates in the teaching programs and 147 in the
general programs in the departments of the Division during the fall of 1969.
Most departments had a roughly even split between these alternatives; Art,
Theatre, and Philosophy had no teaching-program students, while that
category outnumbered the "general" group 26 to nine in French and 17 to
two in Speech Correction. Information about the relative "quality" of
students in these two categories is scanty. In English, 183 students
took the M.A. examination between 1963 and 1970. Of 66 in the general
program, 91 percent passed (over 12 per cent "with distinction"). Of 117
seeking permanent certification, 82 per cent passed (over 3 per cent
"with distinction"). The significance of this apparent difference is not
entirely clear; whether this kind of proportion is constant over the years,
for instance, has not yet been determined.
The four language-and-literature departments enrolled over 70 per cent
of the candidates in the Division, and the Division's 274 candidates con-
stituted almost exactly half of the College's master's level students in
the fall of 1969.
Master's candidates in French and German currently may offer up to
24 credit-hours of work at Nice or Wurzburg, respectively, toward the 30-
hour requirement. Other departments may petition the Graduate Academic
Council to allow comparable credit for study abroad.
B. Doctoral
The Division's doctoral programs have expanded. In 1963 there was one,
in 1967 there were four, in 1970 there are six, and seven more are under
consideration for implementation by 1975. University requirements for the
Ph.D. are described in the Graduate Bulletin, and include a qualifying
examination and a dissertation.
(
There were, in the fall semester of 1969-1970, 12 doctoral candidates
registered in French, 15 in Spanish, 30 in English, and eight in Classics.
During the spring of 1970 the Office of Graduate Studies listed, in its”
active file, 12 advanced doctoral students in Classics, 21 in French, 25
in Spanish, and 62 in English. Not all of these were actually registered
that semester.
The Division's assumption has been that a university's national and
international reputation in academic circles will depend largely on the
proven quality of the holders of its doctorate. We have also proceeded
with virtually unquestioned confidence that the need for PhD's will continue
and increase. Once a program has begun, its goals and standards--within the
framework of the University's regulations-——are the concern of the individual
departments.
Departments in the Division are discussing the possibility of offering
the Doctor of Arts degree. Albany and nine other universities have been
| granted funds, by the Carnegie Corporation, with which to prepare proposals
for programs leading to the DA. The idea of the Doctor of Arts began with
the recognition that universities and colleges are now staffed in large
| part by teachers trained as scholars, and that there is a need for teachers
and scholars’ trained as teachers. The Doctor of Arts program would emphasize
contributions to effective teaching somewhat more than it would the
traditional contributions to literature in the disciplines.
The opportunity to inaugurate the Doctor of Arts degree at Albany raises
significant questions across 2 broad spectrum of topics. They are being
debated this year. The evolution of the campus'’s reputation and the Division's
graduate programs may be deeply affected by the departments’ decisions.
One matter deserves special attention. The number of graduate-student
positions (assistantships, fellowships) has been so small that the departments
have encountered difficulty attracting some of the better prospective
candidates for degrees. The University administration recognizes this
problem. The situation was improved for 1970-1971 when stipends were
raised to $2800 minimum. The University has argued that more State funds
are necessary for this purpose, and we hope that those departments in the
Humanities which cannot support students with off-campus research funds
will receive proper consideration.
Also, since Albany cannot assign funds for September admission until
the preceding April (and in some cases not until May or June), we find it
hard to keep some potential candidates interested in coming to Albany,
especially those who have received offers from other schools.
An escrow system of advance commitments for such mohies deserves
further investigation.
III. Changes
At all levels of instruction, curricula in the disciplines are conceived
and implemented by the departmental faculties (with varying degrees of
student participation).
New courses in the Division must be approved by the College's Curriculum
Committee. This procedure insures that pertinent requirements are met when,
for instance, an honors program is proposed. Although the departments have
been the source of most curricular evolution, some "A&S" courses, the
Environmental Forum, and a proposed program in Linguistics have evolved
independently of departmental sponsorship.
Inauguration of a graduate program involves a departmental proposal,
with a detailed justification, including listing of faculty qualifications,
estimate = of the need for the program, an evaluation of the Library's
resources in the field, and detailed budgetary projections. The Office of
£
Graduate Study supervises planning--in accordance with guidelines from the
Council of Graduate Schools; the proposal is approved or rejected by the
Graduate Academic Council and its parent, the University Senate. Outside
evaluation of the department and its proposal is required before final
campus approval of the program is granted.
Inauguration of (or wholesale change in) an undergraduate program
involves comparable, but not identical, preparation and justification.
Summary:
"Changing" is the most appropriate description of the academic program
in the Humanities. Growth in numbers of students, in number of departments,
in variety of graduate degrees has been our recent history. Study abroad,
special Departmental Programs, the Doctor of Arts opportunity, the "A&S"
courses, and a constant flow of revisions to meet the changing motivations
of students mark the Division's recent efforts.
FACULTY
The faculty in the Division of Humanities at Albany is largely new. The
proportion of doctorates at professorial levels, procedures for granting
tenure and promotion, faculty morale, sabbaticals, and scholarship in the
Division can provide some indication of the faculty's "quality."
In the fall of 1969 the Division's full-time faculty in the professorial
ranks (i.e., at the rank of assistant professor and above) numbered 135.
Fifty-three of these had come to Albany since 1965. One quarter of the
professors, more than one-third of the associate professors, and more than
half of the assistant professors in 1969 had been hired within the four
preceding years.
Only twelve per cent of the full professors are women. Fourteen per cent
of the associate professors, 30 per cent of the assistant professors, 48 per
cent of the instructors, and 26 per cent of the lecturers are women.
As the Division has grown, there has been some turnover among the faculty.
Seven professors have left the Division since 1967, mainly due todeath or
retirement. Four associate professors and 12 assistant professors have left,
mainly because their term appointments were not renewed. Some have been
attracted by better offers from other schools.
In 1970, 28 of the 40 assistant professors (outside the Departments of
Art, Music, and Theatre) hold the doctorate. Thirty-three of 35 associate
professors and 44 of 45 professors have doctoral degrees. The faculty in
these ranks now numbers 151 in the whole Division. In departments offering
the PhD, 93 per cent of the faculty in the professorial ranks hold the PhD.
Tenure and promotion deliberations involve traditional criteria,
following the procedures outlined in the Faculty Handbook. Departments
forward their positive recommendations to the Faculty Personnel Committee
of the College of Arts and Sciences. Eight of the departments acknowledge
student participation in their considerations; three use written materials
from students, one depends on an advisory committee, and four are less
specific about how they consult students. The Faculty Personnel Committee,
according to previous members, has greatly respected the departmental
recommendations. Teaching and scholarship, as well as service to the
community, are weighed. There appears to have been little formulaic
doctrine controlling the deliberations; an appropriate balance of strengths
in individual cases (with some consideration of differing departmental needs)
appears to have been sought.
During 1969-1970, 26 members of the Division's faculty were considered
for promotion or tenure or both. Twenty-three of these recommendations from
departments were concurred in by the Faculty Personnel Committee.
The Division has barely begun to worry about "over-promotion.'' The
surging growth of the University has obscured the possibility that promoting
and granting tenure to large numbers within a few years could lead to an
eventual grave reduction in opportunity (and hence to Albany's attractive-
ness) for younger faculty in the future. This significant problem needs
careful attention, especially if morale is good and if (as currently)
temptations:to move are.relatively scarce.
Faculty morale appears to be reasonably good. Many have complaints,
but just seven faculty from the professorial ranks have been attracted from
Albany in the last four years. They accepted positions at Johns Hopkins,
Maryland, Fairleigh Dickinson, McGill, Lowa, Illinois at Chicago, and New
York's State Education Department.
Departments were asked to estimate faculty morale in ten categories.
Except for salaries, where morale was estimated to be "low" to "indifferent"
-H24° -
or "moderate," most responses fell in the mid-range regarding teaching and
committee loads, research opportunities, promotion and tenure, and other
categories, Morale regarding fringe benefits and sabbaticals was generally
estimated to be high.
Departments strive to provide sabbaticals at normal, regular intervals.
The University is committed to Supporting the departments in their deter-
mination to provide sabbaticals, but, in recent years, the extra teaching
loads imposed on a department because of faculty absence on sabbatical has
had to be absorbed within the departments, Specific support for replacement
faculty has rarely been provided out of extra-departmental monies. Further-
more, when someone goes on a sabbatical for a full year at half pay, the
department is not allowed to hire a temporary replacement with the "remaining"
half of the salary. The departments are committed to sabbaticals, and
endeavor to provide them, but are not supported to the extent they would
appreciate.
We suggest that the Division investigate the possibility of granting
leave at half pay for a Single semester for faculty who have completed 3.5
years of service to the University.
Faculty in the Division have not been idle. Incomplete data about
publication (one index of faculty research) show 60 books and 208 articles
published by faculty members of. the Division since 1967. Departments offering
the PhD contributed 42 of the books and 142 of the articles to this total.
The average number of publications per faculty member since 1967 (based on
current faculty size, and including faculty not of professorial rank in the
calculation) was 2.39 in Romance Languages, 1.68 in Philosophy, 1.09 in
English, and 1.0 in Classics.
Another way of estimating scholarly involvement in the disciplines is i
~ H25 -
by glancing at the activity, not all of which resulted in actual publication,
in a single year. Much work was solicited, contracted, presented, accepted
for publication, or published between July 1969 and June 1970. (We do not
include here the full list of performances with the Boston Symphony, in
Philharmonic Hall, at Tanglewood, in Albany, or the records made or concerts
directed by the music faculty, the seven one-man shows and numerous other
public showings of work by members of the Art Department, or a count of the
performances produced by the Theatre Department.) In the last year the
“academic” departments’ faculties were involved in preparing 32 books and
monographs, 64 articles, seven chapters, 23 reviews, and seven lectures. Again
these figures are based on data provided by the faculty through the departments;
they should be considered evidence of activity, but not as accurate totals.
The faculty in the Division have been awarded many fellowships, grants,
and grants-in-aid since 1967. A high proportion (29) of the total reported
(55) came through’ the Research Foundation of the State University, for whose
funds individuals must compete with faculty members at all units of the State
University. Eight one-year fellowships and scholarships from sources outcide
the SUNY system were awarded in this period; 31 summer fellowships were
awarded over these four years. The Department of Comparative Literature
stands out as having been awarded an average of one grant per faculty member
in the course of these four years.
The data about fellowships and grants, like that for publications and
activity, are not complete. The Division's records in general are not as
complete or accessible as they should be. Most departments went out of their
way, in the course of last spring's turmoil and during the normal confusion
of beginning a school year, to provide the most complete package of information
they could compile. But faculty diffidence, plus an apparently congenital
distaste for records (at all levels) of past accomplishments, leaves us in
- H26 -
perpetual uncertainty about what has been going on in the Division. As
nearly as we can determine, even the procedures for ensuring systematic
annual revision of faculty vitae have not worked. The Division has been
negligent, partially because the complexities of size are new to it, in
the record keeping essential to self-understanding.
RESOURCES
Campus resources for the Division of Humanities include the University
Center for Educational Communication, the Computer Center, the Language
Laboratory, the Library, and research and office space.
The Division has access to technological devices for supplementing
traditional curricular and classroom patterns, but has not yet sorted them
out or decided how to take full advantage of all of them. The Library has
suffered growing pains, but has so far managed to serve the Humanities well.
Like the rest of the campus, the Division is pressed for space.
I. Technology.
The Computer Center operates a UNIVAC 1108 with time-sharing capability.
Considerable automation of the Library's circulation and acquisition procedures
has begun. There has been little demand, however, from students and faculty
in the Humanities for any introduction to how the computer might help in study-
ing literature, linguistics, graphic design, or teaching methods. Several
faculty members are using the computer in their research, but the machinery is
not yet pushed to capacity, and remains reasonably accessible for greater
experimental use by the Division.
The University Center for Educational Communication fulfills two functions.
It provides "audio-visual" support of virtually any imaginable kind, from slide
projectors to movie-producing facilities. It also assists in the development
of total-package courses capitalizing on the multi-media environment of the
new lecture center complex. Some sections of an introductory course in
Philosophy have evolved into an imaginative cooperative venture. The Center
helps illustrate concepts, "wires in" guest lecturers from on and off the campus,
and assists in coordinating the instructors’ goals and the Center's capabilities
toward a novel educational experience. As an experiment, this course appears
to have been an exemplary success.
- .H28 -
Other departments have been more wary of the UCEC; one chairman in the
would result in larger and increasingly impersonal classes, and in unfortunate
attempts to tailor the experience of humanistic education for "assembly-line"
presentation.
Albany's Language Laboratory exemplifies what may be an atypical situation.
Instead of having to Struggle for and keep justifying its piecemeal acquisition,
the language departments now have an excellent facility. The installation is
well supervised, and it is used by all students in introductory spoken-language
courses. Perhaps more emphasis on the evaluation of speaking skills would lead
to even greater student effort in the laboratory. The departments have not
explored fully all of the implications of using machine-assisted and computer-
assisted instruction.
II. Library.
The Library is the primary campus resource for the Humanities. Its overall
state and its provision for the various disciplines in the Division are of
crucial importance. Holdings at Albany have mushroomed, but the Library is not
big enough, funded enough, or staffed enough to do the job as well as will be
expected of it very soon. Under its new Interim Director, the Library has
begun extensive changes in policies that appear to warrant optimism about the
future--provided that sufficient budget support is granted.
In five years the holdings have increased from under 100,000 volumes to
over 656,905 volumes.+ In nine years the "current periodicals" have expanded (
IThis figure is from the campus's 1971-72 Budget Request, as are later data
about the "Clapp-Jordan formula." The 574,700 volume estimate in a later table,
from estimates printed earlier, is retained in that table for comparative
Purposes,
from 480 to over 7,000 subscriptions. We now lend more books through inter-
library loan than we borrow (a recent and dramatic turnaround) ; circulation
(500,000 volumes annually) compares with that at Michigan, where there are
four times as many students.
Staffing has not kept pace with this burgeoning. According to a study
done for Albany in 1967, most large, established University libraries main-
"
tain a staffing ratio of about 1.5 or 2.0 "clerical" positions to each
">rofessional"” position. Yale's ratio in 1964-65 was 260 to 130, Michigan's
248 to 165. Albany does not come close to this proportion, nor, although it
is trying to grow rapidly, does it have total staffs as large as these. In
1968-69 the budget proposed a ratio of 81 to 74; in May 1970 there were 72
"clerical," 56 "professional," and eight "sub-professional" (mainly for
searching) positions in the Library.
Staffing shortages appear to have contributed to other difficulties.
There were 146,000 uncatalogued volumes in the "reserve collection" in the
spring of 1970. (These are now going on the shelves, by accession number,
very rapidly). In the spring of 1970 the reshelving delay for circulated
books reached an extreme of seven weeks. One chairman despaired, last spring,
of seeing again during the semester any book removed from its shelf, not
checked out, and left in the Library for reshelving.
Problems created by ‘shelving collections separately, and difficulties
with current periodicals, are being reetified swiftly. The problem of space
for holdings is more important. Some areas in the depths of the academic
podium, originally allocated for Library expansion, have been assigned to
University College, the School of Library Science, the Educational Opportunities
Program, and the School of Criminal Justice. These spaces will have to be
returned to the Library as it moves toward its million-volume goal, and the
~ H30 -
University is making plans to move some of the occupants to new quarters,
The million-volume level will be reached, if acquisitions continue at
the rate of 80,000 volumes per year, in 1975. The Clapp-Jordan formula for
estimating liminal adequacy for libraries indicates that even now Albany
lags behind "proper" size by over 450,000 volumes, and by 1975 (if projected
enrollments and programs materialize as planned) will be over 900,000 volumes
short of its theoretical needs. 7
Among the State University Centers only Buffalo's library, with an
established collection three times the size of Albany's, spends less per
Full Time Equivalent student than does Albany. What is more, Albany's
holdings (at 61 volumes per FTE student) are barely ahead of Binghamton's
(58), and lag behind Stony Brook's (68) and Buffalo's (88).
Library budget per FTE student--recommended, 1970-1971.
Buffalo $192
Albany $221
Stony Brook $333
Binghamton $335
Library holdings (estimated for 3/31/70) holdings per FTE student
Buffalo 1,464,800 88
Albany 574,700 61
Stony Brook 539,100 68
Binghamton 415,000 58
In regard to the Humanities in particular, the Library seems to be doing
its job satisfactorily. Procedures exist for consulting the library before
new graduate programs are established, for instance. and such consultation is
now required when new undergraduate programs are to begin. Specialized
bibliographers work with the departments; they have worked extremely hard, and
are torn by continually rearranged priorities (e.g., the new programs in Afro-
American and Judaic studies), but there is little complaint from chairmen
about allocations for particular departments" needs. Aggressive departments
and individuals seem to fare better than the ones that leave ordering entirely
to the Library, but even in the latter cases the special bibliographers
foresee many needs.
The Division of Humanities fares relatively well, within the College of
Arts and Sciences, in terms of Library allocations and expenditures accountable
to its departments. Planned expenditures appear to have followed the proportions
of students in the different divisions.
Division 1968-69 planned - 1969-1970
expenditures (% of A&S)
Humanities $123,000 (41.4%) $99,780 (40.3%)
Social Sciences $ 65,000 (21.8%) $62,850 (25.4%)
Math & Science $109 ,000 (36.7%) $85,025 (34.3%)
Since departments in the humanities depend on collections of older materials
and on back issues of periodicals to a greater extent than do some other depart-
ments, it seems inappropriate for spending to follow "per student" proportions.
The following table of actual expenditures (which differs from those planned
because of billing delays, the exclusion of periodicals, and other variables)
shows proportions, at least for monographs, better suited to the needs of the
Humanities.
Division Actual expenditures 1969-1970
(for monographs)
1968-1969 (% of A&S)
Humanities $115,957 (54.92%) $138,072 (53.74%)
Social, Sciences $ 64,049 (30.3%) $ 76,312 (29.8%)
Math & Science S$ 31,144 (14.72%) $ 42,509 (16.6%)
The Library has shown a willingness to serve the Humanities well, but it
has not been allocated sufficient resources to grow as extensively as Albany's
"University Center" designation appears to warrant. The "planned expenditures”
figures, for instance, show a marked drop in 1969-1970 from 1968-1969, a cut-
back paralidling the "budget squeeze" of 1969-1970. This kind of financial
fluctuation is especially harmful to the library because a year of growth
lost" cannot be made up .ben funding returns to normal.
~H32 —
We are especially apprehensive about the temptation offered by the
large, extremely "visible," and peculiarly "uncommitted" acquisitions budget.
This sum has more than once been a target for "mandatory savings." This
year (1970-1971) the Library--although assured it could spend for books at a
rate that assumed eventual availability of-:its total allocation--faced the
prospect of losing $200,000 to the campus's mandatory savings account. Not
until early November, 1970, were these strings removed completely.
III. Space.
"Space" is one of a University's most important resources, space for
books, classes, laboratories, offices, meetings. Albany's campus, designed
for approximately 10,000 students, has never provided entirely adequate
accommodations for the Humanities. Enrollment beyond 10,000 has begun to
squeeze everyone on campus still more.
Figures in the table below are selected from University data on depart-
mental space allocations for all except classroom uses. The table shows the
square footage per FTE student and per FTE faculty in the fall of 1969. Not
all departments are shown.
ft */FTE student ft 2/FTE faculty
Philosophy 3.8 90.1
English 6.6 112.9
History 7.3 129.7
Sociology and Anthropology 4.9 135.3
Romance Languages 11.3 149.0
Classics 21.5 172.8
Mathematics 15.9 268.8
Astronomy and Space Science 35.1 565.1
Art 89.6 1635.4
Geology 666.1 2209.2
Humanities 41.6 618.3
Social Sciences 17.8 344.5
Science and Mathematics 116.7 1224.9
These figures give some indication of the range in available space among some of
the departments, and among the divisions.
~ H3S -
In regard to space outside classrooms for research and consultation,
where the social sciences and humanities are more or less comparable (we have
removed from the following calculations departments requiring special accommo-
dations: the arts, Speech Pathology and Audiology, Psychology and Geography),
departments in the humanities average 149,2 square feet per FTE faculty
member (range 90.1 to 380.1), and those in the social sciences 176.4 square
feet (range: 129.7 to 178.7).
When the search is on for new office space, it naturally focuses on
square footage not explicity scheduled for specific purposes. In the summer
of 1970 the humanities’ lecture-conference room, a magnet for formal and
informal colloquia, readings, meetings, and even some classes, was nearly
turned into offices. Only a last-minute scramble headed off plans to
partition the area, plans that seemed justified by the very real pressure for
more space everywhere on the campus and by the alleged lack of use of the room.
Heavily used sitting space for non-resident students was taken to provide
offices in thé Humanities Building for the new Department of Judaic Studies.
Areas like these contribute markedly, if not on a quantitatively
accountable basis, to the intellectual vitality and growth of the Humanities.
The Division needs such space more, perhaps, than do some other segments of
the University, because it is not allowed separate office and research space.
The Division does need more office space. In the Humanities Building,
the once-private offices are gradually being converted into crowded cells.
The humanist-scholar, who needs no laboratory, seldom needs costly equipment,
and is rarely provided a secretary, must have the quiet of a private office
for his study and research and conferences; a central telephone-dictation
service is urgently needed to provide professors with at least minimal
secretarial help.
The Division's dual needs, for conference-consultation-meeting space
and for private offices, ought not to be turned into an either-or choice.
Both meeting space and office space will have to be provided in new con-
struction, and adequate meeting space should be maintained until that
planned construction is completed.
Summary:
The campus's resources are available to the Division of Humanities, ,.
have been used, and for the most part have provided good support to the
Division's academic programs. Some, especially the computer and the
University Center for Educational Communications, deserve to be more
thoroughly investigated. The Library has worked hard for the humanities,
but has been hampered by expectable but unfortunate budget restrictions.
Space, never adequate for anyone, seems especially short in the Humanities.
We cannot overemphasize the importance of properly nurturing the
Library's solid growth, Some aspects of its budgeting make it a tempting
target when short-term crises arise; long-range goals require that its
development be a major untrimmable priority.
BUDGET
; The financial situation of the Division of the Humanities deserves
discussion under four headings: the budget preparation and allocation
process, how this Division's allocations compare (in some ways) with those of
others, salaries, and off-campus support.
We stress budget preparation procedures because of their impact on the
development of the Division toward distinction, and because they illustrate
our reservations about the apparent criteria for allocating funds and our
uncertainty about whether these criteria actually determine allocations. If
enrollment should guide support, as it seems to, the Humanities should get
more. If educational cost-per-student should guide support, there is room
for debate. If "need to develop" should guide support, there is room for
debate. If departmental initiative, or efficiency, or "image'’ should guide
support, there is room for debate. All of these intangible variables may
influence allocations, but there has been little debate or clear policy about
any of them. Ail of the potential guidelines can serve to rationalize for
or against budget requests.
The first two parts of this report are based on recent history. The
uncertainties implicit in them reflect an environment of legislated cutbacks,
of rapid expansion, of national and campus turmoil, of changes in budget-
preparation philosophy and procedures, and of an interim administrative
organization. We presume that allocation policies will stabilize soon, and
that the Humanities will receive the support they need to flourish at Albany.
I. Preparation and Allocation
Preparation of the operating budget began, for academic 1970-71, in the
spring of 1969. Guideline figures (related to overall probabilities for money,
tied by formula to the allowable faculty-student ratio as determined by the
State University's Central Administration) were promulgated. Departments
estimated needs for fifteen months later, arguing that enrollment was up, or
that innovations were required, or that more equipment and secretarial help
were necessary because of more students and faculty. Theoretically, these
requests and justifications were coordinated and rejustified and trimmed at
each administrative level so that the guidelines held at each step. It appears,
however, that some departments in the College felt that their destiny could
not be realized within the guidelines, and that numerous specific priority
decisions were made above the College level.
"Departmental destiny" is perhaps the trigger of dissatisfaction.
Ambitious plans for graduate programs in successive "Master Plans" have
encouraged departments to begin recruiting faculty in numbers and stature
sufficient to warrant formal proposals for all the envisioned programs.
And there is not enough money to get all of them going at once on an ideal
scale. Competition for limited funds requires priorities, and those priorities--
and who participate in setting them--are not clear to the faculties concerned.
Under these conditions complacent satisfaction is hard to find.
One small example of uncertainty: the campus-wide student-faculty ratio
for 1969-70 was a much-heralded 13.6 Full Time Equivalent students to one FTE
faculty member. It was obvious that not all schools, divisions, and depart-
ments had achieved that ratio. But it is hard to find out why the discrepancy
among divisions is so high. The Social Sciences averaged 19.2 to one, the
Sciences 10.5 to one, and the Humanities 14.8 to one. Within the Humanities,
Philosophy's ratio was about 24 to one and Classics’ about 8 to one. Student-
faculty ratios take the blame when funds are short, but do not appear to be
considered sufficient justification for adding more faculty. We do not approve
of funding on an FTE basis alone, but we have not been offered (and have not
suggested) an alternative. As long as the Division offers no alternative
basis for making fiscal decisions, its complaints will deserve a skeptical
hearing.
II. Comparisons. .t
The budget request, prepared by departments in the spring of 1969 and
refined throughout the summer, shows that numerous’ policy decisions were made
along the way.
Each Division was instructed to request increases of no more than 25%
over the previous budget. The difference between the percentage increases
as first requested by Divisions (far under the departments’ requests, but
far over the 25% target), and the eventual campus "recommendations" before
they went to the State University Central Administration, are shown here:
Divisional Divisional
increase requested increase recommended
Humanities 48.5% 33%
Social Sciences 95.3% 57%
Mathematics & Science 76.22 47%
‘
The recommendations were amalgamated when the overall campus request was
prepared. After legislative approval in March, 1970, of a modified version
of the entire State University budget, the Albany campus received, in effect,
a "lump sum" for distribution among its schools and other operating accounts.
The total allocations for the College of Arts and Sciences were then divided
among the Divisions (as recorded in March, 1970) as follows:
spring, 1969 1970-71 1970-71
recommended increase S$ increase % increase
Humanities: 33% $615,612 23.76%
Social Sciences 57% $673,270 42.512
Mathematics and 47% $653,593 18.93%
Science
The comparison suggests that the Division of Mathematics and Science had
reason to feel disappointed, and that the Division of Social Sciences had reason
to feel encouraged by the decisions made between recommendation and allocation,
although no Division was granted what it felt it needed.
The criteria for financial allocation in higher education are blurred by
uncertainties about what needs measuring and why. Every discipline can argue
righteously about the need for small classes and intimate student-faculty
communication. It is apparently as difficult to convince some mythical
(
scientist that class size is more crucial for the Humanities than expensive
equipment and supplies are for the Sciences as it would be for a social
scientist to persuade some mythical humanist that multiple-choice examinations
are more satisfactory than essays. Furthermore, the establishment of
1
"objective," quantitative criteria for justifying allocations can become an
invitation to facile pro forma fulfillment of formulaic requirements. And
the Humanities, whose contributions to a civilized community are even less
easily measured than those of less ancient branches of learning, are
reluctant to crow or complain about "how they are faring" on a comparative,
quantitative basis.
But there may be some value in seeing the Division in relation to the
others in the College in terms of students served and level of allocations.
The following table, based on various sources of data about the 1969-
1970 academic year, shows:
Social Mathematics Arts &
Humanities Sciences and Science Sciences
Percentage of A&S enroll-
ments among:
1. all students: FTE 41.7% 30.3% 27.9% 99.9%
2. graduate students:
headcount 43.12 28.9% 28.0% 100.0%
3. jr. and sr. majors:
headcount 39.12 33.2% 27.7% 100.02
Percentage of A&S FTE
faculty 40.12 22.4% 37.7% 100.22
Percentage of A&S total
allocated funds (less
Dean of A&S) 33.4% 20.4% 45.6% 99.4%
Total student enrollment
(including '"duplicates")
per FTE faculty 73.2 92.0 66.6 75.1
Allocations per FTE
student (1969-1970
total allocation
fall 1969 FTE students $866 $728 ‘$1,724 $1,080
Allocations per FTE
faculty $12,871 $14,082 $18,138 $15,343
Social Sciences received the largest percentage increase for 1970-71 over
the 1969-1970 budget (42.5%); Humanities the second largest (23.8%) and
Mathematics and Science the smallest (18.9%). Whether the tendency of the
1970-71 budget to develop the Social Sciences at the expense of the Sciences,
while holding the Humanities at approximately guideline levels (25% increase
for 1970-71) heralds a trend is not clear.
Two inferences do seem warranted: there is a precedent for allocating
approximately twice as many operating budget dollars for each FTE student in
the Sciences as for each one in the Humanities (1968-1969: $1,567/$821; 1969-
1970: $1,724/$866), and as of a year ago the discrepancy was increasing from
$746 to $358) . Also, as the very citing of such data demonstrates, it is
very easy to use quantitative data available--notably enrollments-~as justifica-
tion for more money. The temptation to slip into the "growth" whirlpool is
especially easy when almost all of the campus’s operating dollars are
"senerated" by enrolling more students. This circular syndrome is not a good
one for the Humanities.
III. Salaries. 4
One kind of growth not tied directly to enrollments is that of faculty
Salaries. Between 1967-1968 and 1969-1970 pay for all professorial ranks in
the Humanities improved markedly; the median associate professor salary
increased by $1,852 during the three years. At the same time, however, the
median associate professor's salary in the Social Sciences jumped by $2,232,
and in Mathematics and Science by $2,341. Put another way, this mythical
- H40 -
humanist made $428 less than his counterpart social scientist in 1967-1968, (
and now makes $1,008 less. He made $1.126 less than his scientific colleague
in 1967-1968, and now makes $1,615 less. Although this median salary has
improved 16.5% in the Humanities, it went up 19.2% in the Social Sciences
and 19% in the Sciences. |
Means and medians at the assistant and associate professor ranks in the’
Humanities increased by 16-17% in this span; the mean professorial salary
increased almost 19%. Meanwhile, the means and medians at the full professor
rank in both of the other Arts and Sciences divisions increased more than 26%.
Only at the assistant professor level in Mathematics and Sciences has the
percentage increase in salary between 1967-68 and 1969-70 been lower than
anywhere in the Humanities. And even for assistant professors in the Sciences,
median and mean salaries remain more than $1,000 above those in the Humanities.
One important factor in salary differences is certainly when the faculty
was hired: late arrivals, in recent years, have been allotted proportionately
more than those hired when the scale was lower. To take extreme examples,
only eight of 35 at the three professorial ranks in English have been appointed
since 1966, whereas 22 of 31 in Mathematics have joined the department since
then (as of May, 1970). This is part of the reason why professors in English
feel they are seriously underpaid in comparison with mathematicians.
Within the Division of Humanities, too, some inequities of this kind
exist. They are, understandably, not good for morale. In one department,
for instance, a recently hired assistant professor was paid more than several
others at the same rank--some of whom had been at Albany more than five years
longer than the newcomer. Discretionary salary increases have seldom been
apportioned selectively at the department, division, or school level. (
Other imbalances are compounded by the policy of raising salaries, for
- H4i -
the most part, on a percentage basis. The rich get richer, and the poor
just get a little more.
The pending selection of a "collective negotiation agent" for the faculty
and professional staff, under New York State's Taylor Law, may complicate
salary matters. It may be wise to study, and to plan provisions for rectifying
alleged inequities before collective negotiations begin.
IV. Off-Campus Support.
Humanists should be as active as their colleagues in other branches of
che College in seeking money from off-campus sources, even though the
assistance available is pathetically small in comparison with that offered
some disciplines. The Philosophy Department has received a grant of $81,822
from the National Endowment for the Humanities to develop an interdisciplinary
program; the Speech Pathology and Audiology and Music Departments have received
grants of $39,200 and $17,000 for work in their fields. These experiences may
provide encouragement for other groups in the Division. Whether other projects
would be as likely to attract a portion of the small amount presently available
for the Humanities is unknown. Whether departments that do not inaugurate
comparable programs might feel the pinch when it is time for the campus to
allocate more of its resources to carry through any commitments begun by
outside funds is not yet clear.
Developmental support from off-campus funds for departments outside the
Humanities could affect the Division adversely. Acceptance of such governmental
or foundation grants can commit the University to long-term support, as for
tenured faculty who would not have been hired without the aid of the initial
grant; and such commitments (that do notshow up at once in financial plans)
‘may in the long run--long after it is too late to do anything about it--drain
a disproportionate share of campus resources away from the Humanities.
Summary:
The budget preparation-allocation cycle at Albany is confusing, partly
because of the complicated administrative structures of the University and
partly because policies about the criteria on which decisions are based
have not stabilized. FTE enrollment data suggest some possible inequities
among divisions of the College of Arts and Sciences; the Humanities, on
this artificial, quantitative basis, deserve greater allocations--but no
more so than do the Social Sciences. Salaries have not increased as far or
as fast in the Humanities as in other divisions. Off-campus funds are likely
to remain inadequate.
We hope that as procedures stabilize the faculties will be more fully
informed about--and will strive to become less ignorant of--the University's
financial operations. In particular, we suggest that the Educational Policies
Council report regularly to the Senate about its understanding of what
priorities have been established for the University, and about decisions made
to implement these policies. And we urge that the faculties participate
intensively in the formulation of appropriate guidelines for assessing the
contributions of the departments, divisions, and schools toward attaining the
University's goals.
TEACHING
Albany's hertitage includes a commitment to superior teaching. This has
meant, in the Humanities, as great an emphasis as has been practicable on
small classes and close student-faculty relationships. As enrollment pressures
increase, however, and as the University acknowledges its role in the expansion
of the horizons of learning through scholarship, and as the avenues to tenure
— H43 -
and promotion become narrow paths, pressures on departments to increase the
size of classes and to insist on fruitful research are mounting. Unless
they pay careful, continuing attention to the primacy of their teaching
obligation--where scholarship is insisted on as an essential adjunct to
superior teaching--the departments will run the risk of alienating their
students and the public.
I. Quality of Teaching as
Quality of teaching is not yet measurable; few expect it ever to be
coolly calculable. Tenuous indices, that we can observe, of the kind of
teaching going on in a large division include student evaluation, teaching
loads, class size, and departmental and institutional attention to teach-
ing.
A. Evaluation
In its last year of publication (1968-1969) the Student Evaluation of
Courses and Feachers (a tabulation of students' responses to a questionnaire
distributed in required courses whose professors volunteered to be "rated")
evaluated approximately 50 of the Humanities faculty. All but three or four
were recommended strongly or moderately to other students.
B. Faculty Load/Class Size
Faculty "load"--a concept compounded of numbers of students taught,
sections taught, and hours taught, of class preparations required, of
scholarly and bureaucratic accomplishments expected, and of the kind of
student-faculty interaction called for--is increasing in the Humanities.
Class size varies. Some departments are operating at what they consider
to be about the proper density for their varying kinds of instruction. This
ig most often the case at the graduate level. Others are being nudged beyond
optimum levels. English, for instance, estimates the proper size of a senior-
~H44. -
level literature class at 20-35 students, but reports its classes at the 30-
50 range. There is overlap, and the situation is not out of hand, but in
some courses it is no longer possible to assign and do tutorial justice to
long papers.
In the Division as a whole, freshman and sophomore courses averaged about
30 students per section, junior-senior sections averaged about 19 students,
and graduate sections averaged about nine students. The median section size--
for a faculty member--was about 23 at the lower division level, about 14 in
upper division classes, and about seven in graduate courses.
Of 161 full-time instructional faculty in the Division in the fall of
1969-1970, 47 carried a nine-hour load. Forty-two carried six to eight hours,
and 53 carried between nine and 15.
Approaches to teaching vary with the number of students a given professor
is responsible for, in all his sections. The larger the number of students,
the less attention he can give to the work of a single student, and the less
he can scrutinize and comment on assignments. Numbers of students per section
at different instructional ranks varied among departments. In standard class-
room courses (excluding studio courses, some distorting exceptions, and so
forth) the number of students per section for instructors ranged from 14 to 45--
depending on the department. Twelve students per section was the normal
density for assistant professors in one department, and 34 for those in another.
,
The range was from seven to 47 for associate professors, and from 10 to 34 for
professors.
In the Division's largest department, in the fall of 1969-70, most
professors were responsible for more than 40 students in all their sections
together, most associate professors supervised a total of 60 or more, most
assistant professors taught more than 75 students, and no instructor (teaching
four sections) had fewer than 100 students to supervise,
~ H45 -
Median class size, for a student, was larger than the median as seen by
the faculty. The median section size for students at the freshman-sophomore
level was 36; upperclassmen could expect about 28 per class, and graduate
students about 14.
These loads are increasing. Although the median size of section for
upperclassmen remained at 28 in 1969-70, the medians for lower division
students and graduate students went up from 29 to 36 and from 12 to 14,
respectively, between 1968-1969 and 1969-1970. The tendency of the Division
in 1969-1970 (a notoriously "tight" budget year) was to meet enrollment demand
by increasing section sizes. The Humanities' FTE student enrollment increased
by 5.6 per cent that year, while FTE faculty positions declined by 1.4 per cent.
These data can be interpreted in many ways. And such general data do
not reflect every particular situation. But two points can be made. First,
the normative figures suggest that conditions for considerable teacher-student
contact exist in the Humanities at Albany. The student/faculty FTE ratio of
15.68 to one in the Division for 1969-1970 does not preclude the kind of
teaching humanists strive for. On the other side of the coin, that ratio
increased by 7.1 per cent in 1969-1970. The ratio ranged from 8.58 to one in
Classics to 24.22 to one in Philosophy. We may not be able to maintain the
extent of personal supervision essential to the best kind of teaching in the
humanities if we cannot. keep this ratio down. We must guard against crossing
a threshhold into ineffectiveness and discovering that--since the precedent
has been set--we are unable to justify’ funds for the new positions that
would enable us to rectify the unfortunate situation.
This brings us to one of the larger problems the humanities face.
Optimum class size and its significance in the humanities is a matter of
judgment, not of documentable certainty. We find it difficult to compete,
for total allocations, with segments of the University that can document needs
- H4é -
for equipment and laboratories and research funds as well as a student faculty
ratio comparable to that in the humanities. This frustration is multiplied
by the State's pressure on the University to seek additional funds primarily
on the basis of increased workload--i.e., "greater enrollment." In order to
be assigned more faculty se as to reduce the student-supervision load, a
department must constantly increase section size, faculty load, statistical
"popularity." The search for popularity can be a corrupting quest.
C. Departmental and Institutional Attention to Teaching
Departments in the Division _ different combinations of methods for
encouraging improvements in teaching. Most encourage the development of new
courses. Six-are conscious of rewarding superior teaching through promotion;
seven report that teaching is a factor in discretionary salary increases
(although two say they haven't enough discretionary funds to make this
encouragement effective). Nine departments involve students in their evaluations
of faculty, three using written reports and one depending on its student advisory
committee.
Institutional support for teaching at the University has included involve-
ment in a Kettering Foundation project whose participants (including some from
the Division) benefited from the experimental study. A "task force" on
instruction recommended to the President, in 1969, that a Board of Instruction
and Educational Development be established to foster improvement in the
educational processes at Albany. It also recommended a revision of criteria
for promotion and tenure, specifying several kinds of creative effort in the
direction of instructional excellence that would be worthy of positive con-
sideration comparable to that accorded other criteria. The task force also
recommended that funds be allocated to support research in all phases of
instruction, including use of the University Center for Educational Communication,
These recommendations have not been implemented. There is no "good teaching"
(
- H4? -
award, receiving wide publicity, anywhere on the campus.
II. Experiment and Innovation in Teaching
Some examples of experiment and innovation in the Division deserve
attention. The freshman language program, taking students to campuses outside
the United States to immerse them in a foreign language, is a pioneering attempt
to provide a more penetrating educational experience than usual, through modifying
the environment for learning. The Department of Philosophy, partly through its
experimental sections of Philosophy 110, is trying to establish’a system of
tutorial experiences as part of its integrated program. The Departmental Programs
try to stimulate close, deep, and continuing contact among student and faculty
cadres. The Environmental Forum--an interdisciplinary effort under the aegis
of the Art Department--brings more than 50 information sources from on and off
the campus into teaching contact with its students. The Department of Rhetoric
and Public Address hopes to inaugurate a multi-teacher introductory course in
communication during 1970-1971. The language departments take advantage of
their modern laboratory facilities, and of the Humanities-fostered programs
for overseas study. Experiential learning plays a large part in the depart-
ments of Art, Music, and Theatre, where close tutorial contact and student
participation are emphasized. And several departments are increasing their
efforts in the direction of regular, informal gatherings of acquaintances from
both sides of the lectern.
These and comparable ventures into different kinds of teaching have been
undertaken in part because the departménts fear that enrollment pressures
threaten one of the traditional bulwarks against mediocre teaching in the
humanities: the small class. The dependence of the humanities on verbal
participation in the learning process, oral and written, is fundamental.
Larger classes dilute the give-and-take of critical assessment, atrophy the
stimulus of personal relationship and mutual obligation. The humanities are (
wary of legendary “large, impersonal" classes not so much because we feel
that information and even inspiration cannot be imparted by monologue, but
rather because these disciplines ask for less information recall and more
initiative, less problem-solving and more attitude modification than (it
seems to us) do some other areas of a university education. Every move to a
new threshhold of "normal" class size--from 20 to 30 to 40--reduces the time
allotable to each paper, reduces the number of papers assignable, reduces
chances for recitation, reduces the opportunity for conferring regularly with
each student.
Iii. Advising
| Student advising is one area of personal contact where the departments
are pressed by the increase in numbers of students. Especially now that
university-wide distribution requirements have all but been eliminated,
advisers’ responsibilities for helping schedule appropriate proportions of
the spectrum of opportunities on the campus for each student have increased.
In smaller departments, experienced faculty can still supervise most advising.
But in larger ones the orientation and preparation of new facuity--who must
share the task of advising--is seldom provided in ideal measure- In 1970
the English Department has on record over 700 undergraduates assigned to it
for advising by fewer than 50 faculty--of whom nine have been teaching in the
department fewer than two years. 7
The burden of advising is just one of those placed on the faculty.
Pressures to contribute to scholarship are increasing, as is public awareness
of allegations about "scandalous" teaching practices on large campuses. The
Humanities are extremely aware of these pressures, and have struggled to main-
tain Albany's heritage of superior teaching. But the popularity-efficiency
standard of performance, the FTE workload on which budget allocations seem to
- H49 -
depend, makes it increasingly difficult to maintzin class sizes that are
traditionally concomitant with excellent teaching in the humanities.
The Division can do several things internally to encourage good teaching.
Public recognition of "best'’ teachers would make clearer to faculty and
students how important the Division considers the teaching function. Depart-
ments might take greater pains to orient and assist younger faculty in their
first year of teaching at Albany. Encouragement of shared responsibility for
two or three courses among two or three teachers might promote fruitful
attention to how others teach, as well as add spice to the sometimes monotonous
one class-one teacher routine.
The Division, apparently, is for the most part reluctant to relinquish
its conviction that the most significant condition for the fostering of
superior teaching in the humanities is small classes at all levels, for all
students, for all teachers. There is fear that experiments in the direction
of "large-lecture" classes will be conveniently presumed successful by budget-
drafters because such classes will look statistically efficient.
Summary :
Although methods for evaluating teaching have not been refined, the
Division of Humanities has no reason to suppose its own talent and energy in
this respect either remarkably high or culpably low. We do see a two-pronged
threat to what have been, thus far, reasonably good conditions for teaching:
increasing enrollment without proportionate strengthening of the faculty, and
increasing "encouragement" to do more'publishing. Should pressure for
scholarship be coupled with institutional inattention to teaching practices,
some faculty will tend to slight students and seek reward through publication.
Should the pressure of enrollments force sections to get bigger and bigger,
the kind of personal attention that has been emblematic of teaching in the
humanities at Albany will become virtually impossible.
FINE AND PERFORMING ARTS
The long-range role of the Fine and Performing Arts at Albany is not
yet crisply defined. The departments are popular, their faculties productive,
their buildings specialized and impressive. But they are not getting the
kinds of financial support they believe are secoueaee to fulfill the tasks
and promises implicit in their facilities. Education in music, theatre, and
the graphic and plastic arts is expensive, and is difficult to justify in
terms of dollars and cents added thereby to the State's economy. Pressing
temptations to skimp on operating funds must be restrained if the arts at
Albany are to thrive.
Intangible contributors to the University and tri-city communities, the
departments’ thirty-odd productions, 35 or more concerts, and dozen or so
exhibitions each year are among the few experiences shared by students, faculty,
and neighbors regardless of "major field" or dwelling. Their quality, widely
appreciated, is an important factor in the University's educational achievement
and local reputation.
The three departments share certain problems. Some can be solved within
and among the departments, but others call for long-range administrative
cooperation in planning to set boundaries and horizons for departmental
aspirations.
One shared problem involves the balance between "professional" and
"academic" education. The absence of the Bachelor of Fine Arts degrees on the
one hand, and of Teacher Education programs on the other, suggests that the
present balance will continue for undergraduates. Programs for majors in
Music and Art offer options in both performance and academic directions;
Theatre explicity requires history, theory, and practice--with a possible
second field in Production. At the graduate level, there ‘are plans for both
the MA and the MFA in each department; all three departments are looking
forward to offering the PhD. Despite some tensions within departments about
the respective priorities of the two main avenues, both professional and
academic options are scheduled to remain available.
Unfortunately, the projected programs will be-expensive. Récruiting
students and faculty to proceed with academic and professional education in
the Arts, especially at the graduate level, would be unfair if plans faced
curtailment because of dwindling funds. Yet it has become difficult to get
support for continuing some programs. A successful Arena Theatre program,
for instance, that has been presented each summer since 1952, has been
relinquished. Support from student funds, which is allocated from mandatory
student tax receipts, has helped considerably but may diminish. The
Department of ,Theatre depends on these moneys to pay a large part of its
production expenses, and student funds help underwrite some important concerts.
Wholesale changes in student tax regulations, now likely, could reduce such
support seriously.
The $4.1 million Performing Arts Center, with its three small theatres,
recital hall, and moderate-sized central performance and production auditorium,
is still receiving a level of maintenance care for its special equipment and
facilities not much above that provided the classroom buildings. One emphatic
voice insists that "a magnificent building is disintegrating because of the
lack of adequate maintenance."
The picture is far from entirely bleak. Albany's 1971-72 budget request
includes an extensively justified plea for special allocations to rectify some
of the maintenance problems. The State's Council on the Arts and the State
University's Committee on the Arts subsidize some otherwise unfundable
performances, and the burdensome restrictions on day-to~day expenditures may €
help prevent excess spending as well as curtail short-term opportunities.
Some additional operating revenue will come from admission charges inaugurated
this year. (This revenue should not be used as an excuse to reduce allocations,
however, because such a policy could lead to a mandate that most performances
be money-makers).
It is frequently difficult to get seats for recitals and concerts under
the auspices of the Music Department within half an hour before the performance
begins--even when programs are repeated on successive nights. Roughly 50,000
people visit the art gallery's exhibitions of contemporary art annually. The
Theatre Department plans to host the international Children's Theatre Congress
in 1972. in spite of difficulties with short-term budgets, the departments'
performances, exhibitions,.and curricular activities have been generating
excitement and acclaim on and off the campus.
The popularity of the events sponsored by the Music, Theatre and Art
Departments in the University and the outside community is an index of the
quality of these offerings. But emphasis on the public appeal carries with
it the danger of ignoring the instructional value of the activities. For the
departments concerned, the opportunity for their own students to participate
in and attend such events is an indispensable ingredient in their programs of
instruction. It is at least as important as the provision of cultural oppor-
tunities to the community at large. oa
Performance popularity and an active educational program are the off-
spring of Albany's commitments made long ago to programs. But hints of
possible equivocation about those implicit promises are evident to many.
Unforeseen expenses, reduced legislative appropriations, the extremely
visible high cost of maste®tutor education, and a desire to channel funds toward
currently more fashionable and immediate educational goals, all work against
the arts in a cost-accounting community. But the apparent cost of excellence
in the arts, measured on expense-per-student or price-per-performance bases,
dwindles markedly when the wider educational and public service benefits are
recognized. And in view of the existence of "paid for" facilities, hesitation
to take full advantage of them--despite the high cost of the planned programs-~
seems logically and financially unsound.
The University Center at Binghamton, which has "declared majors"’ in the
Arts in roughly the same numbers as Albany, but which does not have such
impressive facilities to utilize and maintain, nevertheless allocates from its
operating budget about 1.2 times as much as Albany for Music, 1.3 times as much
for Art, and 2.7 times as much for Theatre. Different accounting and budget-
ing practices may explain some of the discrepancies, but it appears that Albany
may be, moreso than is Binghamton, allocating faculty and funds for the Arts
through the kind of Full Time Equivalent student formula that guides allocations
in less expensive specialties. This kind of uncertainty deserves clarification.
Even if significant uncertainties about funding and long-range plans are
in the process of being clarified, several specific matters need immediate
attention. Supporting staff for current programs is marginally adequate;
sacrifices and make-do measures (e.g., publicity for musical performances is
now handled, with erratic energy, largely by students) cannot go on much
longer in departmental offices, studios, and the gallery. The complexities
of scheduling in the Performing Arts, Center call for a manager to coordinate
priorities. Artists need studios; everyone needs competent technical
assistance in the myriad details of stage-managing, picture-hanging, score-
and-record and slide-and-instrument maintenance.
There have been advocates of forming a distinct Division of Arts on
this campus. Peculiarities of the budget for those operations may warrant
such a change. Perhaps training should be offered in the professional skill
isi ia ai
of Arts Management, training that Albany with its complex urban neighborhood, ~
School of Business, and several arts departments might be well equipped to
provide.
Close scrutiny of the timetable and organization for development is
called for, with special attention to balances between community service and
campus training, between liberating exposure’ to the arts for many and
excellent training in them for a few, between historical and critical under-
standing and professional superiority.
The Committee recommends a more detailed investigation of all these
matters, preferably with the assistance of specialists from beyond this campus.
Our most pressing need is for unambiguous dedication to one policy that has
a reasonable chance of continuing. We hope that that policy will fulfill the
long-range promises implicit in the structures already erected and the
potential already developed in the departments.
INTERDISCIPLINARY EFFORTS
The notion of interdisciplinary studies is popular for several reasons.
In a time when the values and purposes of entrepreneurial technocracy are
being: questioned, it behooves humanists to know whereof they speak when
addressing the dilemmas of modernism. Furthermore, visions of the synthetic
integration of apparently related but artificially compartmentalized subjects
attract numerous students.
The Division of Humanities has undertaken several ventures in "inter-
disciplinary" education, including the exchange of faculty among departments.
It is beginning to reach into other divisions. But its stirrings in these (
directions are hampered by the fiscal and pedagogic traditions of departmentalism.
- H55 -
Ventures at the undergraduate level began many years ago. The
Department of Comparative Literature (itself an interdisciplinary faculty)
has, since its inauguration, sponsored "Interdepartmental Humanities"
courses on themes like "Authority" and "Fathers and Sons." For these
courses, lecturers from inside the Division have been joined by colleagues
from History, Education, and Sociology. The Theatre and English depart-
ments have interchanged teachers to staff some drama courses... American
Studies, Inter-American Studies, and Judaic Studies involve the Division's
faculty, as do overseas programs and the new "Arts and Sciences" courses.
In 1969-1970 there were a dozen faculty members in seven of the
Division's departments doing part of their teaching outside their "home"
department. Also teaching in the Division were four faculty from the
School of Education, three from the University's administrative staff,
and one each from the School of Social Welfare, the University Center for
Educational Communication, and Union College in Schenectady.
Although a formal program in Linguistics has not yet been introduced,
many courses already exist at Albany; the Division has begun plans to
organize and supplement these in a coordinated program that should, if it
is to be significant, include the resources of the Division of Social
Sciences and the School of Education. The Department of Philosophy is
developing a graduate-level program that will let students concentrate on
the relationship of philosophy with the rest of the humanities, and
eventually with the social sciences and the sciences.
Except for the stirrings in philosophy, the Division has remained
rather parochial about mixing the humanities with disciplines in other
divisions. Students may, to be sure, elect a second field in another
division, and flexibility in the conception of the second field has let a
- HoQ -
few students weave imaginative course combinations around a trans-disciplinary f
thread. And the Area Studies programs presume some inter-divisional cooperation.
But the Division has directed little concentrated effort toward integrating
the materials and methods of other divisiems with humanistic concerns. (We
have canvassed the other divisions to find out what courses with strong
humanistic content exist outside the Division.) ,
Cooperation among divisions, like that among departments, is hampered by
suspicion about what the notion “interdisciplinary study" actually involves.
Committee-designed programs and theme-aligned courses can easily lapse into
attractive but superficial eclecticism. The specific goals of interdisciplinary
study, and the route toward these goals, are not widely understood. Fiscal
tradition is another barrier to the concept of interdisciplinary study. The
release of a faculty member to a project not part of an institutionalized
department can leave that department open to the charge that it clearly doesn't
need all its assigned faculty to "do its own work." Also, the faculty member
may be reluctant to admit to his department that something outside "his
discipline" could possibly be as attractive as what goes on within it. In
effect, "interdisciplinary" efforts (as they are generally undertaken) flourish
only so long as they do not threaten the vested interests of established
departments or of the faculty whose services are paid for by those departments.
Summary:
The Division of Humanities, potentially an innovator in interdisciplinary
studies, has made some notable efforts in that direction. Should the Division
desire to do more in this area, we will have to scrutinize carefully just what
such study should involve, and then consciously undertake the considerable
risks involved in legitimizing and forcefully encouraging the still-suspect ¢
electicism inherent in the concept.
eneral University policy
We call attention to the desirability of ag
that encourages interdepartmental efforts without prejudice to participating
departments and faculty.
