Red McCombs School of Business

School of Business Faculty Forum Summary Report (PDF) Faculty Comments: Kristie Loescher, lecturer, management I'm writing to ask if the task force addressed International Baccalaureate students and transfer students regarding participation in University College.   Did the task force discuss the integration of International Baccalaureate students? Since most IB students typically enter as sophomores (and I seem to recall some Texas legislation that would grant them 2 years of college credit), would exceptions be made for these students to bypass the freshman course recommended by the committee or require them to take it with the other freshmen? Similarly, would there be a core course geared to transfer students similar to the freshman/sophomore signature courses outlined in the task force report? I saw that regulations would be determined regarding flag courses for transfers, but there did not seem to be a place for transfer students to get an equivalent experience to the freshman/sophomore signature courses.   I teach a substantial writing component course in the business school (BA 324 Business Communications) and know first-hand that students who pass AP exams in writing do not necessarily have the skills to succeed at college-level writing assignments. Therefore I fully support limiting AP credit in core courses and integrating more writing and analytical thinking throughout the core curriculum. My experience with IB and transfer students has been different, most of them do come with the basic skills necessary to succeed at upper division course work and would not be challenged by a course focused on the basics.   I personally think that IB and transfer students should have a signature course that recognizes the higher academic level of the students, while providing the community-building experience described in the task force report. Leaving these student populations “un-indoctrinated” (in the gentlest sense of that term), will undermine the effectiveness of the community building achieved with the freshmen/sophomores as all of these students intermingle in upper division classes.   I applaud the spirit and philosophy behind the report and believe these reforms will create a higher level academic community at UT.   Thanks for all your hard work! Eli Cox, professor, marketing Members of the Task Force, Educational Policies Committee, Faculty Council and others are to be commended for their worthy aspirations and hard work in trying to revise the core curriculum of UT undergraduates. The fact the report covers organizational as well as curricular issues indicates that resources are the foundation of any successful curriculum. The most fundamental problem with the current core is in its execution rather than its conception. Some courses are taught in large sections where a phalanx of TAs grade exams, hold office hours and protect the professor from student contact. Even if a professor is an excellent lecturer, the students feel anonymous and often alienated on this campus of 50,000 with a dorm larger than some of their home towns. It is my observation, based upon informal surveys I have conducted, that a disproportionately large share cheating incidences on campus occurs in these classes. Another measure of their lack of appeal is how few students actually take these courses. I have heard it argued that it is better for UT students to take these classes in high school or a community college than at UT;  I cannot provide a counter argument. Any curriculum reform that does not address the underlying resource and organizational issues will necessarily result in a core no better than the current one. I attended a forum this afternoon where a number of our colleagues discussed the proposals and ways to improve upon them. I offer the following suggestions, not all of which are mine, in this spirit: 1. A transfer pricing mechanism should be  established to allow instructional dollars to follow student enrollment. The transfer price might  be: TiD = 1/n x .5 x MiD, where i is the individual student, n is the desired class size, .5 is the adjustment for courses running only one semester, and MD is the median salary of tenure-track faculty in department D. These funds would be transferred from the college in which a student is majoring to the college providing the course and the funds would be used only for teaching the particular course. This system of transfer pricing should be applied to all undergraduate service courses (those courses taught by one  college but required by another). A similar system of transfer pricing should also be established for advising, so areas like Pre-Med advising have funds proportional to the number of students they serve. A Vice Provost and Dean of Undergraduate Studies position should be created to oversee undergraduate education holistically and  to administer the transfer pricing funds. The award winning Undergraduate Advising Center we had several years ago should  be reinstated. The Vice Provost  and Dean of Undergraduate Studies would be responsible for this center.   The Vice Provost and Dean of Undergraduate Studies would also be responsible for the University College which would receive freshmen admitted to UT but who are unable to choose a major. It would also be a home for other students who have left one major but have yet to select a replacement. This College would  prevent Liberal Arts from appearing as a dumping ground. The University College would have no requirements and would not provide students with an opportunity to graduate  from it. The Undergraduate Advising Center would be housed in the University College and would be its only student  services function. High school seniors should be allowed to select the college of their choice as is currently the case. I have surveyed the last two freshmen classes in the Business Honors Program and over half of the respondents would not have come to UT had they been denied to the program. I am sure this  is true for many other students even if they are not in an honors  program.   Freshmen in the University College should be given a one-hour course on career planning and professional development. Students would be assisted in both academic planning, so they can find the major of their choice, and career planning, to aid them in getting into the graduate program of their choice or to obtain meaningful employment before graduation. Faculty, outstanding upperclassmen, successful alumni and recruiters would speak in this course. The work product of the course would be a four-year academic and career plan (in pencil, of course) for each student. A separate group of faculty and staff (perhaps the President’s Budget Advisory Committee) should be established to work on resource and organizational issues in parallel with the Educational Policies Committee’s work on curriculum issues. Both resource requirements and curriculum must be articulated in  parallel if meaning progress is to be made. Many of us at UT believe the national rankings of undergraduate programs treat us unfairly. We now have the opportunity to prove they are wrong. James Deitrick, professor, accounting I applaud the members of this task force for their time, energy, creativity, and dedication. I think they accomplished their mission with excellence. I congratulate and thank them with sincerity. However, I have serious reservations about the implementation of the group’s many recommendations. First, we, as faculty, are essentially being asked to enthusiastically endorse and support these many initiatives on “blind faith” alone. We need some strong evidence or compelling arguments to convince me, and probably others, that the end-result of these recommendations will be demonstratively better than what we, and our students, have now. Actual implementation presents the institution with several difficult problems including manpower, training, supervision, and funding. If these initiatives go forward, I suggest that they be done in a “beta test” with, say, 25% of a cross-section of the first freshmen class that would be impacted by these recommendations. Next, as best as I can determine, there are no real incentives for many faculty members to “buy into” the creation of a University College, signature courses, and a “common intellectual experience for each graduate.” Many of these experiences are to involve the “University’s finest teachers and scholars.” While the rhetoric is pleasant, the reality is that Texas is a research institution, pure and simple. The Texas reward structure verifies this, especially in the McComb School of Business. While good teaching, service, and course development are welcomed and desired, the reality is that promotion, tenure, and compensation decisions are almost exclusively based on published research. This is true also for endowed professorships, chairs, and throughout the process of evaluating holders of endowed positions. Today’s faculty members are smart enough to know that it is not in their personal best interest to devote time away from research, especially for activities that are not portable or valued by other peer institutions. Without strong faculty support and encouragement, it is my opinion that reality will make it difficult, if not impossible, for these reforms to succeed. Consequently, the administration needs to take a hard look at the tenure and promotion policies of all colleges and schools in order to determine if they are in harmony with efforts to bring about significant curriculum reform at all levels. Third, for a variety of reasons, including reduced state funding, our various colleges and schools have been forced to become islands unto themselves. Schools, like those in business and engineering, have raised considerable funds for undergraduate scholarships, academic advising and support, and career planning. It appears that these initiatives have been successful. Moreover, freshmen apparently appreciate their identification and involvement with their college of choice. As evidence, the data show that transfers out of the McCombs School of Business are relatively small in number. Since business freshmen have applied to and been accepted by the McCombs School, why would they want to be placed into the University College? Again, evidence is needed to support or justify this possibility, even if they do remain with the McCombs School for freshmen advising. How will the University College provide a “value-added” experience that business students cannot otherwise attain through other avenues? Finally, I suggest that incoming freshmen and transfers be given the choice of being advised by the college or school to which they have already been admitted, if applicable, or by what I suggest is the “Program for Undecided Majors.” The director of this program would serve directly under the Provost, thereby eliminating the need for the University College and reducing the propensity for expanded bureaucracy.