Click for next page ( 2


The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement



Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page 1
1 THE VIEW FROM ABOVE As participants on a panel, deans and provosts discuss the competition among academic departments for the allocation of university resources and how mathe- w~atical sciences departments usually fare in this competition. They also make suggestions as to how these departments might compete more successfully and increase interaction with other departments. MATHEMATICS SHARE IN THE UNIVERSITY Ronald G. Douglas (Organizer), State University of New York, Stony Brook THE VIEW FROM ABOVE Gerald J. Lieberman, Stanford University BUTED THE DEPARTMENT S IMAGE Frank C. Hoppensteadt, Michigan State University A PROVOST S PERSPECTIVE Phillip A. Griffahs, Duke University

OCR for page 1

OCR for page 1
IkE VIEW FROM ABOVE M~HEMATICS SHARE IN THE UNIVERSITY Ronald G. Douglas State University of New York, Stony Brook During the periods 1971 to 1973 and 1981 to 1984, Iwas chair of the Mathematics Department at the State University of New York at Stony Brook, and for the last four years I have been dean of the Division of Physical Sciences and Mathematics there. One learns a lot in such jobs about making choices and about how universities function. One learns about making choices, because there are almost always more good things to do with money than there is money available. (And indeed there should be if the faculty and chairs are doing their jobs!) Consequently, one learns about how universities function because that is what one needs to know to argue for and get money to do things. It is a fact that nothing within the mathematics discipline prepares one to be an administrator. Indeed, traits essential to being a good mathematician even work against it. For example, most mathematicians believe that a straightforward, completely logical approach is the best (only?) way to argue and that if their arguments did not carry the day, it was because there was some flaw in theirlogic or because the other person did not understand them. A related fallacy is that because something "should be done" it will be done. Arguments that rest on such an appeal often do not work, in part because there is little agreement on higher principles. Time spent as a chair usually persuades most mathematicians of the above. Time spent as dean or higher in the administrative hierarchy will certainly do the trick. Mathematicians have a lot to learn about how universities function and this lack of understanding often costs the discipline. Here, I want to discuss some of the more important facts. Let me add that I am not trying to tell you what to do, only to provide a basis for your making decisions. First, mathematics departments are viewed primarily in terms of their teaching. That is because mathemat- ics usually teaches about 10 percent of the ~ l L;s at a university, second only to English. Moreover, mathematics is critical in many other programs, and administrators tend to get more complaints concerning mathematics than any other subject. Finally, the size of a mathematics department is almost always directly related to its teaching load. Our community is very concerned about research. Now, presidents, provosts, and deans are delighted when their mathematics departments (as well as any other department) are outstanding in research and bring their universities recognition and outside funding. However, there is little payoff possible in mathematics because of limited funding, which is thinly spread out. Moreover, because mathematicians tend to be supercritical of one another and use a very narrow definition of research and scholarship, very few departments are recognized as outstanding or excellent. One can contrast this with other fields in which groups in specialties can garner praise. Further in this connection, we tend to write short, nonspecific letters of recommendation, especially when the letters concern awards and prizes, or promotions not involving tenure. We fail to recognize that such honors can benefit not only the individual but also the department and the discipline. The lack of such distinctions can lead administrators to wonder about the quality of their mathematics departments. Our indifference to awards and honors is usually not understood. Second, we prize people in mathematics rather than special areas or specialties. The "hot areas" are those done by the "hot people." We argue with deans to hire or reward mathematician X rather than arguing that field Y is important, and therefore we must hire or reward X because he or she works in it. Many may disagree with 3

OCR for page 1
CHAFING THE MATHEMATICAL SCIENCES DEPARTMENT OF THE 1990S this statement, but I'm convinced that deans will agree with it. Mathematics pushes people as "artists," not as "scientists." I am not arguing that this is wrong, only that this policy has costs. Arguments, whether on the university campus or in Washington, to benefit particular individuals are usually harder to win than arguments for research programs. Third, mathematicians usually don't understand that university resources are not fixed and reallocation of existing resources is ongoing whether the total budget is rising or falling. Because we don't see the possibility of additional resources, we don't articulate, or argue for, our needs. The tragedy is that not only do we not get the new resources we need, but also we often lose some of what we have because the need is perceived to be greater elsewhere. Let me now make a number of statements on issues important to mathematics without going into detail. . . Majors are important, and departments must make it worthwhile for faculty to devote time to recruiting, retaining, and working with them. The natural constituency for mathematics includes the secondary mathematics teachers; it is important to cultivate and work with them. National reports such as Everybody Countsi and the David report updater can be used profitably on campus and locally. Mathematics is not the only discipline in which serendipity is important. Everyone desires to be supported and allowed to work on what they wish, not just mathematicians. Again, this is the "art" versus "science" debate, but I don't believe we want to be supported the way the country supports artists. Startup funds are very important to many mathematicians. Thus it is crucial to fight for a local policy that provides such funds for new appointments and perhaps for newly promoted faculty. Matching funds for grants such as those involving computers are important also. Staff positions, different from faculty positions, are becoming necessary in mathematics. One example concerns a position with the responsibility for maintaining the computer equipment; another might be for a specialist in a teaching laboratory. Funds for such positions will not be obtained just for the asking, but may require continued effort over several years. Finally, let me summarize what I believe are the three most important points: 1. Arguments for resources are not always won based on logic or appeal to principles; 2. Reallocation is always going on and you are guaranteed to lose if you don't participate; and 3. Recognition of the fact that while research may be your primary goal, mathematics departments are usually viewed in terms of teaching. While you don't have to think the same way as deans, provosts, and presidents, I believe that unders~d- ing how they think should be useful. Good luck! National Research Council, Everybody Counts: A Report to the Nation on the Future of Mathematics Ed acation (National Academy Press, Washington, D.C., 1989~. 2 National Research Council, Renewing U.S. Mathematics: A Plan for the l990s (National Academy Press, Washington, D.C., April 1990~. 4

OCR for page 1
THE VIEW FROM ABOVE To VIEW FROM ABOVE Gerald J. L'eberman Stanford University A description of my credentials is in order. Before being promoted to becoming a mere mortal, I served in the Stanford administration in several capacities. I joined the administration from the position of holding a joint appointment in statistics and operations research, and serving as chair of the Department of Operations Research. I was asked to become associate dean in the School of Humanities and Sciences. The School of Humanities and Sciences at Stanford is quite large (approximately 30 departments and programs) and there were then three associate deans. An associate dean served as the cognizant dean for approximately ten departments. My role was to serve as cognizant dean for most of the science departments, including the mathematics and computer science departments. Nominally, the home department of the cognizant dean was handled by a different cognizant dean, but clearly, I had important input into the thinking of that dean. After serving in this capacity for three years, I moved into the central administration where I served as vice provost and dean of graduate studies and research. First of all, having a faculty member from the mathematical sciences serving in an administrative capacity is a net plus for the departments in this area. In spite of knowing where many skeletons reside, a dean from the mathematical sciences will be sympathetic to genuine departmental needs, and even those not so genuine. Deans generally categorize departments as being "excellent," "good," and "poor." Excellence is rewarded by taking each request from such a department very seriously and, generally, acceding. There is no greater disaster than seeing an excellent department deteriorate. A "good" department is taken seriously, but a dean is more apt to substitute his/her opinions if there is any doubt about the legitimacy of the request. A "poor" department generally gets very little, simply because there are limited resources, and "excellent" and "good" departments have higher priority. Of course, if a "poor" department is targeted to become an "excellent" or "good" department, resources are committed. A good dean generally compares the activities teaching load, research assistants (RAs), teaching assistants (TAs), etc.-of a department with those of its national peers rather than with its peers in the same school. Thus the teaching load of the Department of Mathematics at Stanford is compared to the teaching load of mathematics at Chicago rather than the teaching load of physics at Stanford. This is an important point to underscore to you as chairs because these are the data that you should be compiling for your use in making persuasive arguments with your deans. What are the key elements of the resources of your department? These include faculty salaries, infrastruc- ture, and TAIRA support. In conversations with deans about faculty salaries, comparable data from other similar institutions are invaluable. These data should be made as specific as possible, coming from published surveys, unpublished surveys, and the result of conversations and other sources. These data must be accurate. Again, comparing mathematics salaries with physics salaries at the same institution is not particularly meaningful. Let me qualify that statement by giving an example of the type of internal salary data we kept We plotted a regression of log salary versus some measure of years of applicable experience for the entire science component of the school. The department chair could then plot the salaries of individual faculty to see how their deparOnent fared. Using these data could lead to a persuasive argument in favor of raising the salary level of the entire s

OCR for page 1
CHAFING THE MATHEMATICAL SCIENCES DEPARTMENT OF THE 1990S department. Needless to say, the ranking of salaries within a department is an important consideration. Therefore, raising a faculty member's salary in response to an outside offer is beneficial to the entire department. It is very important for the chair to be aggressive on the matter of salaries. Infrastructure support is, of course, consequential to any department. However, support for infrastructure is generally very limited, and deans attempt to spread these resources in a fair manner. If the mathematical sciences departments are to increase their share of the pie, they must show that their new needs are unique and vital to the teaching programs of the departments. A good example is the need for micro- and minicomputers in departments in the mathematical sciences. The final element of resources that I want to discuss is the TA/RA budget. TAs are used in a variety of ways in the mathematical sciences. Some departments use TAs to teach sections of elementary courses; some departments use TAs to handle problem sessions for large lecture classes; and some departments use TAs as glorified graders. In all cases, TA money is an important element for the support of doctoral students. Indeed, the number of graduate students is often a function of the number of TAs needed by the department, and the relationship is complex. Therefore, it is difficult for departments to make invidious comparisons with other departments within the same university or between similar universities. It is true, however, that providing additional TA money is an inexpensive way to "improve" the quality of undergraduate teaching. The quality of teaching is important to every dean, and arguments that conclude that undergraduate teaching will be improved are listened to carefully. Of course, 1ethng TAs teach more sections does not lead to improved teaching. In my experience, research universities do not fund RAs out of general funds; RAs are supported out of government contracts and grants. Thus, a major source of graduate student support must come from resources obtained by individual faculty members. Indeed, that is why the efforts of the Board on Mathematical Sciences in producing David II are so important to the profession. Finally, what can be done to hire new faculty? A major issue confronting every university is affirmative action. We must hire more women and minorities for our faculties, and deans will be very responsive to providing the necessary funding. Furthermore, we will not achieve this goal overnight. Thus, it is vital to increase the pipeline. Funds for minority and women doctoral students will be readily available. Funds for what I call "target of opportunity" appointments are frequently available. Deans are reluctant to pass up the opportunity to add a distinguished faculty member to their roster, even though there are no available positions assigned to the department. It is incumbent on the department, of course, to make the case that the prospective appointment is truly outstanding. 6

OCR for page 1
THE VIEW FROM ABOVE BUSED THE DEPARTMENT S IMAGE Frank C. Hoppensteadt Michigan State University Mathematics can be an isolating profession. This is reflected in the fact that mathematics departments are often fragmented according to specialization. Another indication of this isolation is that many mathematics faculties have minimal interaction with their colleagues from other departments within the college and the university. This is usually limited to a few committee assignments reluctantly undertaken. Often there is not sufficient contact with local, state, and national groups who have an interest in the department. These groups include former students, school systems, parents of students, and organizations that hire the graduates of the department. Many departments have established excellent working relations with federal funding agencies by winning grants and participating in peer review. External funding is an important component of a successful department. However, successful departments usually do much more. The following are examples of proven techniques for improving a department's image. 1. Improve the image of the department within the university. Encourage faculty to reach outside the departmentby taking leadership roles in college and university committees. Develop a task force to work with local and state elementary and secondary education. Develop a task force to attract minorities and women to mathematics and to create a receptive environment for them when they arrive. Create and support a college-wide mentoring program to help with advising and retention of students in mathematics and science. Get to know development officers at the university and get the mathematics department on their agenda. 2. Improve the image of the department with user groups. Track students after graduation and maintain contact with them. A record of fair and reasonable treatment of non-major students and their parents is important. Keep in touch with frequent users of the department: business, engineering, education, science departments, etc. Encourage participation by undergraduate and graduate majors in the department's social and business agendas. Emphasize that the department cares what happens to them while they are in school and after they leave. 3. Make contact with prominent friends of the department. Create a board of external advisors that comprises prominent people in business, government, and politics, getting names of candidates for this board from the university's development office. These people know how students are being used, where their training is deficient, and what are the particular strengths of a department's program; they can provide important access to the central administration on behalf of the department; they can be substantial contributors to a department's development fund; and they can help in placing students in suitable jobs. Chemistry andphysics departments usually have extensive connections in industry. In my experience, they have been very effective in presenting space and budget needs in clear and well-documented ways. They have strong federal support and their students are often prominent in management. Strong industrial support for biology, beyond agriculture, is now emerging for the design of drugs, genetic engineering, and other aspects of biotechnology. Mathematics departments that have pursued computation and applied probability have developed useful industrial ties. Other specializations should develop similar connections. We were surprised at the prominent positions some of our alumni now hold. They are very willing to help us. 7

OCR for page 1

OCR for page 1
THE VIEW FROM ABOVE A PROVOST S PERSPECTIVE PhiZZip A. Griffzths Duke University Before we open the floor for questions, I wish to offer a few observations from the view of a provost. Provosts are generally involved with schools and therefore are less directly involved with departments. However, I will briefly give five characteristics or qualities generally attributed to mathematical science departments by my counterparts at other universities. These views are not arrived at scientifically, and the less flattering characteristics may well not apply to my own mathematics department, whose chairman is in the audience. First, university administrators are initially well disposed toward mathematics departments. Most of them believe a university cannot be first-rate without an excellent English department in the humanities, an excellent economics department for the social sciences, and in the hard sciences, an excellent combination of mathematics and physics. A second attribute of departments that is important to university administrators is their own quality control. Here the mathematics department gets good marks. The discipline of mathematics has generally accepted and agreed upon standards. The processes of peer review and of selection of colleagues are based more on quality and not on other issues e.g., ideology or politics than in other fields. Third, on the integration of teaching and research, the mathematical sciences don't fare as well. There is more of a conjunction between the teaching and research functions in, for example, the humanities, where research can in fact be blended with undergraduate teaching. The fourth attribute is interaction with other departments. Historically, mathematics deparanents were viewed as being rather isolated. Their chief interactions were with other mathematics departments. This is now changing. Since many problems from other sciences are of interest to mathematicians, we are now seeing much more interaction of mathematics departments with other departments in the university. Finally, the fifth attribute is what I will call political savvy. Mathematics departments have been viewed as being less interested in campus politics. This is not necessarily good or bad. However, it seems to be changing. In closing, I would like to emphasize Dr. Douglas' initial point that the way a university functions is not a rational process. This is difficult for us in mathematics to handle. On the other hand, that is the way things are. 9

OCR for page 1

OCR for page 1
THE VIEW FROM ABOVE QUESTION-AND-ANSWER SESSION PARTICIPANT: Could you discuss the issue of joint appointments? DR. DOUGLAS: Some of our discussion today is related to the culture and sociology of mathematics. A person with a joint appointment must live in two cultures, especially if the second field is very different from mathematics. One must address that. Also to be considered is the usual problem of blending two disciplines. One must pick a lead department with the ultimate responsibility for issues of tenure, promotion, and other professional concerns. A joint appointment should be entered with complete understanding of its terms. One should not make or accept a joint appointment and expect to work things out later. That is inviting trouble. DR. LIEBERMAN: My experience is that the pure mathematics department has not wanted to have joint appointments. There are probably concerns about whether the joint appointment would result in a reduction of one's contribution to either department. However, I think joint appointments are ideal. But one has to make both departments happy. Joint appointments in other fields of mathematical science statistics, computer science, and operations research-have been more prevalent, easy to make, and very successful. From the individual faculty member's point of view, there are a lot of difficulties involved in a joint appointment. One has two masters. Additionally, one must produce students in both departments and produce research funding in both departments. In this case, the sum of one's activities generally adds up to more than 100 percent. I would be reluctant to encourage young people to take joint appointments. As they move up and have acquired tenure, the problems become more manageable. PARTICIPANT: May I speak to that? I try to obtain two appointments, one for each of the two departments involved. Then I allow shared teaching and give both persons the right to direct theses in both departments. This removes the problem of two cultures and seems to work very well. PARTICIPANT: Several national reports and speakers here today have mentioned the need to get women and minorities into mathematics and mathematics departments. Are there any solutions to this problem? DR. HOPPENSTEADT: My daughter, who is good in mathematics and physics, is in high school. I want her to go into physics. She went to see her counselor at school. Afterward we discussed her visit. Her counselor had recommended that she go into fashion merchandising. There is a very strong imprint still directing women away from science. However, some progress is being made. The mathematics department at Michigan State has recruited a number of outstanding women mathematicians who find a receptive environment there. The issue of cultivating receptive environments is difficult. It will take time to change. Many of the departments are dominated by majority males. When "receptive environment" is mentioned to a group of this type, there is no resonance at all. No one understands the meaning of the words. Itreally takes training sessions to work on the departments end begin raising the issues that face minorities and women coming into the programs. I have been involved with training, on thePh.D. degree level, of a number of women and minority students. They have been successful in their careers. However, they have been exposed to a tremendous number of phone calls requesting that they accept appointments with departments because those departments need a woman or 11

OCR for page 1
CHAIRING THE MATHEMATICAL SCIENCES DEPARTMENT OF TO 1990S minority faculty member. It is staggering to realize that people actually say such things on the telephone. As chair of a department, one must not do that. The issue of getting the minorities pipeline filled is one of the things on which we have been working. We run extensive programs for students who have finished their junior year. When students are brought in after their junior year in high school, they have a year to make up deficiencies they may have. Thus, they have a chance of entering on the same footing. Also, we have an enrichment program for high-achieving minority students that sees them through mathematics programs. That has been going on for 25 years at Michigan State. These kinds of programs are available at other universities as well. The programs are hard-nosed and students must be well motivated and must work hard to remain in the program. On following the students through, the success rate is dramatic. So special guidance and advising of undergraduates are helpful. There has been a tremendous amount of discussion of these issues over the last 20 years. We are just at the threshold where many of the environments that have been hostile are becoming more receptive. PARTICIPANT: I wish to comment on that. We have found that allowing interested female faculty members to teach calculus has helped in getting highly qualified women mathematics majors. They see successful role models. That is critical. It also suggests some problems. We have eight to ten percent minority students. However, it is very difficult to find successful minority role models in any of the sciences. I think that may really be the crux of the problem. DR. HOPPENSTEADT: I think that is changing. I see more minorities and women in mathematics at the Ph.D. level. But I agree with you, it is a critical issue. 12