A Tuesday faculty forum to discuss a proposal to transform the division of engineering to full-fledged school drew about 60 professors and administrators, mostly from the sciences, and many of whom expressed skepticism of the proposal.
The most contentious part of the discussion, which preceded an April 6 vote on the proposal, concerned a potentially disproportionate emphasis on engineering at the expense of other sciences.
"The administration does feel that this is an important step," said Clyde Briant, vice president for research, who said he was speaking on behalf of Provost David Kertzer '69 P'95 P'98. "It's part of the natural evolution of building the sciences and engineering."
Brown would be the last Ivy League school after Harvard to have an engineering school. Brown's proposal involves faculty hires, research investment and construction totaling $100 million. Much of Tuesday's conversation centered on the substance of the changes and how these would affect other science departments.
Most faculty agreed that engineering needed some expansion at the University.
"Engineering is small," said Professor of Physics Chung-I Tan P'95 P'03, chair of the department and head of the Faculty Executive Committee. "It should grow. As it grows, it will benefit all science areas." The important issue, he said, was to ensure coordination so that other areas grow at the same time.
Those behind the proposal sought to win the approval of other departments prior to the vote. "It's very important for us to interact with as many of you as we can," said Rodney Clifton, interim dean of the division of engineering.
Before the discussion began, Clifton showed a slide of Brown's Prince Engineering Laboratory, the University's principal engineering research space, which was built 50 years ago. "That's not the way research is done today," he said, "We need quiet spaces, clean spaces." To illustrate a model of modern research facilities, he showed a slide of Harvard's state-of-the-art Northwest Science Building.
The Harvard comparison persisted when Professor of Physics David Cutts pressed Clifton on the organizational structure of the school.
Cutts said he was concerned about "a leadership of the school that was reporting at the highest level and thus was independent of other faculties." Harvard's model, he said, was "much more inclusive" than Brown's proposed school, because the dean of the school of engineering reports to the dean of the faculty. Under the new proposal at Brown, the dean would report directly to the provost, bypassing the faculty of the arts and sciences.
The decision to have a new dean report to the provost was made because "it's just a much more attractive position if we show that the person is reporting at the level of the provost," Clifton said.
Clifton also explained that engineering would be unified internally, with no departmental divisions within the school. The departments of applied math and computer science were initially envisioned as part of a new school, he said.
"They have opted not to join this school, but I think there's quite a lot of support," he said.
Many professors spoke about "collateral benefits," using a term introduced by Professor of Pediatrics James Padbury, who said increased research in nanotechnology would complement his own work. Dietrich Neumann, chair of the faculty forum, said he heard "a chorus in unison."
When other professors began to suggest alterations to the plan and voice concerns, Susan Alcock, professor of classics and director of the Joukowsky Institute for Archaeology, highlighted her department's unusual involvement with engineering. She urged other faculty to take a "slightly more holistic view of the whole situation."
Tan asked whether there was a comprehensive plan for the reorganization of all the sciences. Vohra replied, "The whole question of how we are organized ought to be considered in its own right." Donald Forsyth, professor of geological sciences and vice-chair of the Academic Priorities Committee, said there may be discussion of having "another layer of deans beneath the provost."
Other faculty brought up the idea of creating multidisciplinary institutes in the three areas identified in the proposal as needing attention and expansion — micro- and nano-technologies, biomedical engineering and energy and environment and infrastructure.
" ‘Interdisciplinary' is very exciting," Professor of Physics James Valles said. "What is challenging about it is in fact maintaining a core intellectual feeling."
In choosing areas in which to bring new faculty and expand, engineering would work with other departments whose research areas overlapped, Clifton said. "It's kind of like a football draft," he said, "You go for the best athlete."
Clifton emphasized the importance of the name change and the need for visibility to attract students. Of the 25 top universities in the nation, 23 have schools of engineering, he said. The other top university lacking a school is the California Institute of Technology, which has a formidable reputation in engineering but does not have schools. "For visibility, it is important to us that it really be a school," Clifton said.
Several speakers touched on the issue of diversity, both in terms of the ethnicity and gender of students and new faculty hires. However, Harvey Silverman, professor of engineering, said he was satisfied with the Department of Engineering's current gender breakdown. In his course, he said, "we're just about 40 percent women now. I'm not terribly unhappy."
With the emphasis on building sophisticated research capacity, the impact on undergraduate students was another thread of the discussion. "We do not want to tamper with the undergraduate experience at Brown," Briant said.
Clifton said the presence of more faculty would mean more courses of general interest could be taught.
"We don't have enough elective courses to offer undergraduates," said Professor of Engineering Eric Suuberg.
The last major arc of the discussion was the plan to raise $100 million for engineering, of which about a third would go toward the construction or renovation of a new building.
"We've been very careful in planning this whole thing that this won't take away from others," Clifton said. "We had a bigger proposal there before." The current proposal is the third version of a proposal first drawn up in summer 2008.
The game is not necessarily zero-sum, Clifton said. "The focus here is to bring into the University money that we're not getting, money that's being left on the table. My prediction is that the overall giving will go up."
Cutts suggested giving co-appointments to new professors. This could be "an opportunity for all the sciences to work together in bringing these people here," he said.
As for the physical location of the building, Clifton said that hasn't been discussed. John Hermance, professor of geology, spoke about how he valued running into his students as he walked around campus. "We need that kind of casual interaction," he said, concerned that the location of a new facility in the Jewelry District or Wayland Square would scatter students and faculty.
Forsyth said he would like Prince Labratory itself to be replaced. "That would one thing many of the faculty would like to see," he said.
Briant noted that Kertzer is planning to appoint a committee to develop the physical space component of the proposal.
ADVERTISEMENT
