The principal asset of any university is its faculty; it is axiomatic that the best university must have the best faculty. To assure that the College has the most outstanding faculty of any public university in the country, it must:
Strategy A: Identify, contact, invite and attract the most outstanding faculty prospects.
Action 1: Improve recruitment packages, equipment and facilities, to competitive levels.
Resources to provide competitive packages for new faculty should be gathered. Improved resources from the University, cooperative packages between departments and research centers, leveraged equipment packages and cooperative research agreements with industrial partners and other innovative options should be investigated and pursued. The level of first and second year Summer support and of support for students for new faculty should also be examined to determine if the presently offered mix is proper and adequate.
Responsibility: Departments, Dean
Resources: Efforts by Assistant Dean for Development, time to pursue opportunities by Department Chairmen, Dean
Timeline: New resources by next recruiting year; continuing effort with industry
Success Metric: Per cent of offers accepted/declined to top candidates
Progress: Dean Streetman reports that we have succeeded in getting an extra $500,000 per year from the Provost's office. This is used primarily for matching funds. Return of overhead to departments and centers enhances our recruiting packages. We have received a commitment from National Instruments to give new ECE faculty summer jobs it that would enhance recruiting. We will try to duplicate this type of support from other companies. Much larger recruiting packages will require more support from the central administration, perhaps coming from greater pay out in the Available Fund, or from income provided through a college-naming gift.
The Department of Chemical Engineering (ChE) participates in two forums a year where start-up packages are discussed. The Big Ten Plus chairmen meet in the spring and the Department compare past start-up offers. The Council for Chemical Research meets in the fall and up to 50 departments respond to a survey that catalogs past start-up offers. This is fine for a historical perspective, but the real measure is what the applicants we are recruiting in a given year are being offered. The offers do not change by much from year to year, all that changes is the level of equipment support and this is highly dependent on the needs of the applicant. The Chemical Engineering Department needs to offer a minimum of two summers of salary (six months - $30,000 exclusive of fringe benefits), five graduate student years ($125,000 in 1999 terms), $50,000 for discretionary spending, pay for the move, an equipment budget that will be at least $100,000 and could go as high as $300,000. Chairman Dr. John Ekerdt notes that we can't forget about the recruiting visit costs (more than one applicant must be interviewed for each position) and the cost of revisits. The minimum cost to launch a new faculty member is $325,000 and it could go as high as $525,000.
When possible ChE will attempt to leverage off Institutional initiatives, such as those in applied mathematics, bioengineering and materials science. ChE looks to the Office of the Dean to provide some base-level of discretionary spending and to help as much as possible with the equipment. The Chemical Engineering Department relies on excellence endowment income, corporate gifts, and corporate grants to provide the balance of the startup package. If ChE identifies a candidate it wants to hire, Dr. Ekerdt feels confident his Department will find the resources to succeed in closing the deal.
Progress report from Dr. Francis Bostick, Chair of Electrical and Computer Engineering-- For new junior faculty working in the area of computer architecture there is an endowment available for paying summer salary and for supporting the new faculty member’s research activities. This includes providing stipends for graduate research assistant support.
The ECE Department is a member of the Texas Telecommunications Educational Consortium (TxTEC). The membership in this consortium consists of five universities located in the State of Texas and a number of telecommunications companies. Funding provided by the corporate members may be used by the universities to enhance the recruitment packages of new faculty hired in the area of telecommunications.
The ECE Department has been the fortunate recipient of a gift of unrestricted funds, These discretionary funds are used primarily to enhance the recruitment packages for new faculty.
Where possible the ECE Department promises TA positions to graduate students who elect to work under the supervision of newly hired faculty. In this way new faculty can provide for support for students who choose to work in their research area in addition to performing their teaching duties.
The availability of endowed chairs has made it possible for Electrical & Computer Engineering to hire faculty at the senior level who are at the top of their technical fields. This past year the Department successfully recruited two outstanding faculty: one in computer architecture and the other in software engineering.
Action 2: Each department should plan ahead to identify potential entry-level faculty candidates early in their PhD program, and intermediate level candidates through interactions with their peers.
Entry-level faculty with high potential should be identified before finishing their degree program, and recruited actively through invited seminars and continuing contact. A Visiting Professor program would help to determine faculty potential without a firm commitment, and would be helpful in recruiting intermediate level faculty. A funded seminar program should be instituted to look over potential faculty prior to a formal interview visit.
Responsibility: Department Chairmen, Associate Dean for Academic Affairs
Resources: Faculty time to work with faculty colleagues at other universities and industry. Unfilled faculty lines could be used to fund visiting positions. Cooperative seminar funding with industry.
Timeline: 1 to 2 years
Success Metric: Per cent of offers accepted/declined to top candidates
Progress: Departments have been identifying potential entry-level faculty candidates early in the Ph.D. programs and intermediate-level candidates through interactions with their peers on an ad hoc basis for many years in the College. Sources of funds to bring such candidates in for informal visits include endowments in the College and gifts to departments directly. To benchmark the current success rate of hiring new faculty using AY1997-98 as the starting point, the success rate for Assistant Professors was 80%; no recruiting was done at higher ranks. In AY1998-99, recruiting success at the Assistant Professor level was 86%. While it will be a challenge to improve on this success rate, the department chairmen will be asked to encourage their faculty to periodically contact the top engineering programs in their disciplines to learn of outstanding candidates and to be alert at conferences and workshops for outstanding individuals that should be considered.
Progress report from Dr. John Ekerdt, Chair of the Department of Chemical Engineering-- We are always on the lookout for potential faculty. We routinely ask faculty at the best programs who we should watch. We fund a seminar program and when faculty visit we ask who in their program is exceptional. We are trying to get a donor to fund a Chair that can be used to bring in senior faculty for a semester, pay their salary fully for the semester, and provide a secretary for the semester so they can work on a book, write articles, give a series of lectures, and fall in love with us. We funded a seminar program which cost us $18,000 last year, essentially all of this money came from the Department.
Dr. Francis Bostick, Chair of Electrical and Computer Engineering Progress Report-- ECE faculty members who travel to conferences and to visit sponsors are encouraged to extend their trips to visit local universities to identify potential faculty candidates who are still in their Ph.D. programs. The Department picks up all incremental travel expenses.
The telecommunications technical area is requiring that all of its faculty take at least one recruiting trip to a leading university to identify potential faculty recruits. This will be done as planned trip extensions described above.
All faculty who have colleagues at other leading universities are asked to inquire about potential faculty recruits in the Ph.D. programs at those universities.
ECE faculty members are encouraged to bring to our attention any person who should be considered for a faculty position. The person is usually identified because he is a personal acquaintance or has been recommended by a colleague. The candidate may be from another university or from industry.
Action 3: More latitude should be given to identification and recruitment of intermediate level “rising star” faculty.
The present College policy of recruiting chiefly at the entry and senior level should be reexamined. Faculty with established excellent programs elsewhere in disciplines of importance to this College should be recruited, thus taking advantage of proven and recognized ability. Splitting of endowed positions to support hiring packages at intermediate levels should be pursued as a way of attracting such faculty.
Responsibility: College administration
Resources: Support for increased startup packages and salary levels for new faculty.
Timeline: Immediate
Success Metric: Per cent of offers accepted/declined to top candidates
Progress: A few candidates are being considered outside the traditional recruiting levels of Assistant Professor or Chaired Full Professor. However, to reduce the average age of our faculty and to enhance funding for salaries of current faculty, we will continue primarily replacing retired faculty with junior faculty.
Strategy B: Provide serious and visible support for faculty salary needs to keep this college competitive with the faculty members' peers at all levels of the professorate.
While salary is not the only incentive and is usually not even the highest priority of university faculty, it is an important one. To assure that the College is competitive with our peer institutions, we should:
Action 1: Increase funding level and number of chairs, professorships, fellowships, awards
The State shows little sign of meeting the real needs of the College in salary equity. Providing salary supplements through endowed positions is one option for improving the situation. Adding new endowments or supplementing existing endowments will allow salary improvements to a cross-section of the faculty.
Responsibility: College Development Office
Resources: Donors
Timeline: In 5 years, competitive salaries at all ranks with other top 10 schools
Success Metric: Annual improvement in Dean's Table of Salaries
Progress: John Halton reports that as part of the "We're Texas" campaign, we have approximately $50 million projected for new faculty positions and upgrades of existing positions. Currently we have been able to upgrade 10 positions and we will have acquired funding for two new chairs by the end of the year and identified a third which will come to the College as part of a bequest, but probably be at least funded during the life of the donor.
Action 2: Annually survey and benchmark faculty salaries at peer universities
Information on our peer groups is particularly necessary to show the present level of our faculty compensation vis-à-vis our peer institutions. The survey should include cost-of-living differences among regions.
Responsibility: College Data Coordinator
Resources: Existing personnel on the Dean's staff.
Timeline: Immediate
Success Metric: Annual improvement in Dean's Table of Salaries
Action 3: Promote awareness within the University administration of the need for faculty salary parity with competitors by enlisting the participation of our alumni and corporate clients.
Responsibility: Dean and EFAC
Resources: EFAC organization and time commitment.
Timeline: In 5 years, competitive salaries at all ranks with other top 10 schools
Success Metric: Annual improvement in Dean's Table of Salaries
Progress: We annually provide the Provost and President with data and graphics showing our salary distribution relative to our peer institutions. In 1999, we were provided an extra $100k by the Provost to use in salary increases, which we used to enhance the salaries of rising stars at all levels. We also received permission this year to pay a larger fraction from salaries from endowments. This allowed us to use more state funds for rising stars at all levels.
Action 4: Articulate the College policy on faculty salary.
Faculty need to be aware of the particular areas that will be used in their evaluation for promotion, tenure and merit raise consideration. Many changes in the College policy have been proposed in this plan, and the faculty need to be made aware of changes in the requirements and expectations.
Responsibility: Dean with Department Chairmen
Resources: None
Timeline: Immediately after adoption of the strategic plan priorities on faculty activities
Success Metric: Faculty awareness and changes in behavior to correspond to college priorities.
Progress: Making sure faculty understand the criteria for recognition through salary and promotion is an ongoing educational task. Post-tenure review, review of junior faculty by Budget Councils, and faculty mentoring of junior faculty are ways we communicate these values and standards.
Dr. John Ekerdt, Chair of Chemical Engineering-- We have a very clear policy on how the evaluations are done and what the Budget Council looks for in the evaluation process. We have discussed the expectations openly in faculty meetings and the evaluation process and the concept of merit review are discussed by the Budget Council before each review cycle. This dialog will occur again within a few months. We operate with the resources we are provided by the College.
Dr. Francis Bostick reports that the Electrical and Computer Engineering Department uses a Metric system to evaluate faculty for merit raise recommendations. This system includes numerical Metrics for activities in each of the three categories: teaching,, research, and service. Faculty members receive a copy of the Metric system and can compute their own totals to compare with the department’s computations.
Strategy C: Provide a serious program for faculty professional development.
Engineering and science are evolving at a rate unprecedented in history. To assure that our faculty remain at the leadership edge of their disciplines and to enable them to move into newly emerging areas of technical importance, the College should:
Action 1: Study and initiate appropriate support for faculty and graduate teacher training, improvement and evaluation in the College.
Teaching excellence is a high priority of the College, but we do not presently provide formal programs in teaching methodology for new faculty or for graduate students interested in a teaching career. Mentoring programs and formal effective teaching courses offered by the College should be investigated. Improved techniques for evaluation of teaching are needed. These might include College-administered mid-term evaluations by students and faculty peer reviews.
Responsibility: Associate Dean for Academic Affairs
Resources: As determined by study committee
Timeline: Phased in as appropriate, but in place by 2000/2001 academic year
Success Metric: Improvement in College-average student evaluations of teachers; improved view of teaching by students in exit interviews.
Progress: A Web-based teacher training program is being developed in modular format for several purposes. New faculty will be required to go through the program, experienced faculty may study any particular module as appropriate, and prospective faculty can experience the training in a graduate course and gain experience in the classroom in the process. It is anticipated that elements of this program will be available in August 1999.
Action 2: Survey and benchmark professional development programs at competing top schools and implement a leading program in the College
This College should provide guaranteed sabbatical leaves, support for off-campus participation in continuing education, and other programs that provide faculty development. Based upon the survey results, a program should be established that is a leader among our peer institutions.
Responsibility: Associate Dean for Research
Resources: Staff time to contact other institutions, gather information.
Timeline: Siix months to have information in hand, support raised following “We're Texas” campaign schedule.
Success Metric: Information in hand to provide a basis for establishing a leading program, continuing increase in proportion of both successful engineering FRA's and faculty leaves supported by other sources.
Progress: We have requested policies on faculty leave/sabbaticals from the Engineering colleges at eleven large state universities. Ten have responded to our request as of 3/4/99. With little deviation among the Universities, the policy is that a faculty member may apply for a leave every seven years. The University will provide one semester at full pay, or two semesters at from one-half to two-thirds salary. Normally, the faculty member is required to return for one year following a leave, or in some cases for a period equal to the leave period. One school allows supplement of the sabbatical salary with salary from research grants, the total not to exceed 100% of normal academic salary. No College reported a College-based program for supplementing the University program. None mentioned a limit on the availability of funding or a requirement for external support as a condition of leave.
Action 3: Expand the Dean's Fellow program
The Dean's Fellow program presently is aimed at supporting various College priorities such as the development and implementation of multi-media teaching materials, the We're Texas program, etc. Expansion to include faculty who are moving into new research areas, have a peak in research load, etc. would allow faculty who are unable to take advantage of FRA's or other off-campus programs (because of family commitments or other factors) to continue to develop their teaching and research. Funding should be provided to the Departments to allow covering the course load of those on Dean's Fellow appointments.
Responsibilities: Dean, Department Chairmen
Resources: Sufficient teaching or funding support to allow Dean's Fellows to be named without significant impact on the teaching load of other faculty.
Timeline: Double over 5 years
Success Metric: Continuing increase in Dean's Fellows to reach timeline goal.
Progress: We continue to make good use of the Dean's Fellow program. The obvious constraint is the ability of departments to cover teaching loads, since no money is provided by The University for the Fellows program. We are trying to interest donors in supporting this type of program, but no progress has been made yet.
Dr. John Ekerdt, Chair of Chemical Engineering-- The Department of Chemical Engineering will not be a big supporter of the Dean’s Fellows program since there are no resources to support it. When a faculty member becomes a Dean’s Fellow, someone from the Department must teach that member’s course. We have neither the faculty resources nor the "extra" courses that could be used to accomplish this.
The Electrical and Computer Engineering Department has not made extensive use of the Dean’s Fellow program and at the present time has no plans to do so. The financial resources are not available to hire adjunct faculty to replace more than one or two regular faculty who have been released form teaching duties by being named a Dean’s Fellow. A significant number of faculty in the department secure release time by "buying out" with research funds. In principle, the funds released by a buyout cover the cost of an adjunct to replace the faculty member in the classroom.
Action 4: Establish a College faculty leave program funded from industrial resources and work with visiting committees to find opportunities for placement of faculty with leading government and industrial R&D organizations.
This action will provide another avenue for faculty development, and will allow some faculty to reside in Austin and others to go to off-campus research centers.
Responsibilities: College with EFAC
Resources: Administrative time to implement, faculty replacements for those on leave, industrial support/funding.
Timeline: 1 year
Success Metric: Continuing increase in faculty in industrial/government rotations
Strategy D: Provide clear signals to faculty of the value of interdisciplinary research, teaching and teamwork, including the encouragement and recognition of such work through the merit review and tenure processes.
Many of the most interesting and important emerging areas of technology cross discipline boundaries. This almost universally requires a team approach to research and teaching, since only rarely does a single individual possess both the breadth and depth of knowledge and skill to approach these problems single-handedly. To encourage faculty to engage in interdisciplinary team-based research and teaching, the College should:
Action 1: Recognize and reward teamwork, interdisciplinary research and teaching in the promotion, tenure, and merit salary process.
Responsibility: Associate Dean for Academic Affairs, Department Chairmen
Resources: None
Timeline: In place for 1999-2000 promotion cycle
Success Metric: Procedures in place in each Department and in College promotion/tenure review committee to include careful evaluation of contributions to interdisciplinary research and teaching programs.
Progress: A document is being prepared for distribution to the faculty pertaining to evaluation of teaching, research, and service that will include recognition for teamwork, interdisciplinary research, and teaching in the promotion, tenure, and merit salary process. It will incorporate the "Guidelines" document (see G3/SB/A2) already distributed to the faculty.
Dr. John Ekerdt, Chair of Chemical Engineering-- We do this now and we remind the Budget Council the importance of team efforts during the annual evaluation cycle. We have a history of collaboration in our Department and I do not see aversion to collaboration as a cultural issue in Chemical Engineering.
There has been no formal action by the Electrical and Computer Engineering Department to provide special rewards for teamwork or interdisciplinary research and teaching. The Department’s Metric system, used to measure faculty productivity, makes no distinction between teaching and research activities performed individually or in a single discipline and those that involve a team or cross more than one discipline.
[Also see (G1:SD:A3); (G3:SC:A2-5)]
Action 2: Help to provide equipment, facilities and staff for interdisciplinary work
Faculty bear the brunt of preparing proposals for interdisciplinary research and teaching programs. This will probably always be the case, but the College should provide support where possible. Such support should include preparing non-technical portions of proposals, staff help in convening meetings and gathering information, provision of matching funds where appropriate, and other help in preparing quality multiple investigator proposals.
Responsibility: Associate Dean for Research, Department Chairmen
Resources: Matching equipment funds (level addressed elsewhere), staff aid in proposal preparation
Timeline: Continuing
Success Metric: Interdisciplinary program success and funding level increases
John Ekerdt, Chair of Chemical Engineering-- We provide technical support for manuscript and proposal preparation to all our faculty, we match equipment on proposals that will be reported through the Department of Chemical Engineering ORU and if a proposal is reported through the Department of Chemical Engineering ORU, we provide procurement and accounting support. This is a College issue until the proposal finds a home (ORU) and then the problem is local to that ORU.
The Electrical and Computer Engineering Department is one of three groups that will have faculty and staff offices, laboratories, and student spaces in the new ACES building being built by the O’Donnell Foundation. The other two groups are the CS Department and the TICAM organization. Faculty from each of the three groups will be mixed together in the building in order to encourage interactions of an interdisciplinary nature. In addition to the "bricks and mortar" of the building itself, the O’Donnell foundation is providing for all of the furnishings and a state-of-the-art telecommunications infrastructure. The University will provide for a small number of staff members to manage the building and the communications networks.