Panel meets about College of Natural Resources review
Students concerned about the College of Natural Resources’ future met Wednesday morning with the review panel to talk about the strengths and weaknesses of the programs the CNR is offering.
The review is occasioned by the CNR dean, F.E. Busby, leaving at the end of the year and Martyn Caldwell,the director of the Ecology Center, retiring, said James MacMahon, Utah State University biology professor and member of the review panel.
The review panel has one day to assess the college’s programs, he said. Then they will meet with USU Provost Stan Albrecht with their suggestions on how to improve the college.
“We’re going to act as sort of a representative group talking to the provost on behalf of the college and the center to see if we can help you make things happen that will make life better for everybody,” MacMahon said.
The panel values student input on what the weaknesses of the college are, MacMahon said. The members of the panel dedicated one hour to student input in open forum style before meeting with the Provost at 10 a.m., Wednesday to make their suggestions.
Student concerns included more unity among graduate students, increasing the distinction between programs, considerations for students with disabilities, library resources and where funding can be found for the college.
“Our overall idea is not to change the college fundamentally, but to fine tune some of the things that are going on in the college now and to help them to do the things we know they want to do,” MacMahon said. “It’s a fact, that if an outside group reviews a particular entity in the university and makes a report, that sometimes has more impact than people in the college complaining about things that are going on.”
The panel will highlight the issues in their formal report submitted to the provost, MacMahon said. The review team is comprised of three other members, Don DeHayes, dean of the CNR at the University of Vermont, Allen Covich, director of the Institute of Ecology at the University of Georgia and Kristiina Vogt, professor at University of Washington.
The review is a beneficial process for the college, DeHayes said. There are dramatic changes in the world of natural resources, and looking at and evaluating the CNR’s programs is a positive step, he said.
“I don’t think anyone is here looking to knock anyone out, or to make uncomfortable changes toward the college,” said DeHayes about the review process.
Christo Morris, a master’s student in range land sciences, said he is concerned about aspects of the CNR that were lost during the reorganization of the college. Morris said one thing the college struggles with is maintaining an interdisciplinary environment, and the reorganization might have helped that, but one of the drawbacks is not retaining the specificity of the programs and graduate student unity.
“I think that the college is struggling with that balance,” Morris said. “We no longer do pre-projects and defense seminars for the whole college. It has lost a little bit from the reorganization.”
The issues the college is struggling with are the same issues institutions nationwide are facing, DeHayes said.
“In order to have interdiscipline, you need discipline,” he said. “How do you create the balance between those two? It’s tricky.”
Although the reorganization of the college may leave faculty and students wary of where the programs are headed, this is an interesting time to be a part of the college, Covich said, but it may take a few more years to see the full effect of where the college is going.
“I think you’ll look back on this five years, 10 years from now and see you were here at a very interesting time when very important changes were made,” he said.
Covich said graduate student inputs are valuable to the college.
“As director of our institute, I can tell you I listen to those suggestions because they’re the very best. You know what you need and you know why you need it,” he said.
Concerns about funding for natural resources programs was raised and whether or not there is sufficient funds on state and federal levels. Federal funding is not drying up, DeHayes said, but to obtain federal funding, colleges need to reposition themselves.
“There will be funding, but it will be different. Don’t give up on the forestry service,” DeHayes said. “It’s highly competitive.”
The panel recommended the graduate and undergraduate student councils be involved with decisions about the college’s future.
MacMahon said the provost is not planning on changing student courses, but there may be subtle changes in the course. There is not a timetable for changes to be made in the college.
“We don’t have a timetable, because we don’t dictate whether or not the suggestions we make will be accepted by the college and administration,” MacMahon said. “We think we are the right track. Some of the things that have come up have been so consistent that if the administration ignores it, they’re stupid.”
-kcashton@cc.usu.edu