University of Washington SAF Accreditation Review, 2006

Standard III: Forestry Program Organization and Administration

College Administration
The College of Forest Resources has been under the leadership of Dean Bruce Bare since 2001. The College of Forest Resources is one of 17 colleges and schools within the University of Washington, all directed by Deans or Acting Deans. All Deans report to the President and Provost.

University of Washington’s Colleges and Schools
College of Architecture and Urban Planning: Fritz Wagner, Dean
College of Arts and Sciences: David Hodge, Dean
Business School: James Jiambalvo, Dean
School of Dentistry: Martha J. Somerman, Dean
College of Education: Patricia A. Walsey, Dean
College of Engineering: Mani Soma, Acting Dean
College of Forest Resources: B. Bruce Bare, Dean
The Graduate School: Suzanne Ortega, Vice Provost and Dean
Information School: Harry Bruce, Dean
School of Law: W.H. "Joe" Knight, Jr., Dean
School of Medicine: Paul G. Ramsey, Dean
School of Nursing: Nancy Fugate Woods, Dean
College of Ocean and Fishery Sciences: Arthur Nowell, Dean
School of Pharmacy: Sidney Nelson, Dean
Daniel J. Evans School of Public Affairs: Sandra O. Archibald, Dean
School of Public Health and Community Medicine: Patricia W. Wahl, Dean
School of Social Work: Lewayne Gilchrist, Acting Dean

View the College of Forest Resources' Organizational Chart

College Staff Resources
Noninstructional staff vary in duties ranging from central support to dedicated research. The College currently has 121 (headcount) staff, 109.6 FTE, supporting the administrative, instructional, research, and outreach functions of the College. The table below displays current permanent or long-term noninstructional staff and their FTE, grouped by primary function. In addition to these positions, the College employs many more temporary and hourly positions. It is important to note that although staff numbers seem large, many are dedicated to special enterprises. The erosion of general College support staff caused by earlier reductions in state support has not been resolved. Efforts continue to make more efficient use of staff resources through technology, but the fact remains there is always much more to do than time available, and it is often difficult to meet even the basic needs.

The Office of the Dean
The Office of the Dean provides support to the Dean in meeting the responsibilities of the executive officer of the College, including College-level coordination of undergraduate and graduate instruction, coordination of the College research program, administration of research funds, administration of College lands, and administration of support services. To accomplish these administrative responsibilities 17.0 staff FTE are assigned to the Dean's Office, including the Director of Student and Academic Services and the Director of Information Technology, two offices that provide direct support to the instructional function.

The Director of Student and Academic Services, Michelle Trudeau, administers the Office of Student and Academic Services (3.0 FTE), which is charged with assisting both undergraduate and graduate students in the College in all aspects of advising, including interpretation of College and University requirements and assistance in course registration to meet graduation requirements, in obtaining summer employment while in school and permanent employment upon graduation, in establishing mentoring relationships, and, in collaboration with the College Administrator, with administering the College Scholarship and Financial Assistance Program. Three full-time staff members, including a Director, Graduate Counseling Services Coordinator, and Undergraduate Counseling Services Coordinator, work to plan academic programs, set policies, petitions, and exceptions, answer scholarship and fellowship questions, track curricula and enrollment, manage student databases, process forms and applications, maintain student email lists and the College job list, provide information about concurrent degree information, organize an Annual Career Fair, general undergraduate and graduate advising, and coordinate the College Career Corner.

The College of Forest Resources has an internal Information Technologies team (CFRIT), under the direction of Director Marc Morrison, 4.0 FTE total. Three support staff, a Network Administrator, Desktop Support Staff, and Computer Lab Manager, manage all the College’s server, computer, and technology needs; ordering and installing equipment, maintaining and upgrading existing equipment, and solving daily security and network issues. This includes serving field sites located throughout western Washington. CFRIT also interfaces with campus IT groups, providing an important link between University computing initiatives and local activities.

Marivic Jimenez coordinates the pre- and post-award grant function, which financially benefits both undergraduate and graduate students. Four FTE staff provide fiscal services for the entire College.

The Faculty Office
Organizationally, the College has moved relatively recently from a multi-division structure to a single faculty unit headed by a faculty chairperson, Professor Richard Gustafson, and an elected vice-chair, Professor Gordon Bradley, who will move into the chair position upon completion of the current chair’s term, 6/15/2006. Although the College is a non-departmentalized college, the Faculty Office functions as a department under the policies and rules of the University as set forth in the Faculty Handbook. The new organization continues a long-term philosophy in the College that undergraduate curricula should be the primary determinant for College faculty organization. This premise is based on a number of principles:

1) As organizational drivers, graduate education and research, although important College missions, probably do not require the same basic level of administrative coordination and cohesion. Graduate “interest groups” and research areas are both more diverse and much more flexible in terms of faculty interest and participation and require less formal program management;
2) Undergraduate education requires strong consensus of viewpoint, consistent allocation of teaching and support resources, active support of constituencies, and greater faculty teamwork; and
3) The single faculty office more closely reflecting undergraduate curricula does not detract from the College’s capability to effectively support graduate education and research programs.

The faculty of the College is collectively responsible for maintaining undergraduate and graduate curricula. The functions of the faculty office are to: recommend standards of academic programs and administer curricula; govern student recruitment, advising, grading and graduation; conduct faculty searches and vote on recruitment of faculty; recommend on promotion, merit, and tenure; administer faculty teaching and workload assignments; participate in program development; and recommend on development and allocation of facilities.

At present, the faculty office is supported by one administrative assistant, supplemented by hourly help. The Assistant to the Chair position is currently vacant; it is expected to be filled prior to the end of spring quarter. There are also 3.0 FTE lab positions supporting two separate laboratories.

The College houses a number of interdisciplinary research and education centers and cooperatives, whose presence adds to the academic experience. These units require a large number of staff to carry out their respective missions.

Within the College, committees, comprising both staff and faculty, also perform critical roles. There are two that directly relate to instructional issues:
The table on the following pages lists all permanent and long-term staff of the College, as well as their titles and affiliations.

View the staff table

Commitment to Quality Instruction
The College of Forest Resources is committed to recruiting and retaining quality instructors, as evident by an inclusive and thorough hiring process, a detailed promotion and merit-pay process, and using student evaluations and recognition events to document high-quality faculty.

Faculty
Faculty Appointments
When a faculty position is vacant, or a need for a new position is realized, the College undergoes an intensive faculty hiring process. First, a position is defined by the College and accepted by the University. Once the position is defined, a faculty committee is appointed by the Dean to serve until the position is filled. An international search is launched, with the position advertised in journals, higher education materials, and on-line employment pages. The committee reviews the applications and decides on three or four applicants to invite to the College for a two-day interview process. The applicants meet with numerous College and University faculty, staff, and students, and are required to present a seminar relevant to the position; occasionally, the visiting candidates are asked to be a guest instructor in a course of their expertise. Feedback from staff, faculty, and students is submitted to the committee, and included as part of the review process. After the visits, the committee makes a recommendation to the entire faculty, followed by a faculty-wide vote on whether the candidate is acceptable or unacceptable and who is the top candidate (if any). The recommendations from the committee and the faculty, along with an additional recommendation from the Faculty Chair, are passed on to the Dean, who makes the final decision in the hiring process.

Faculty Evaluation and Recognition
The College has two main paths for evaluating and recognizing faculty: promotion and merit-pay increases. Both promotion and merit-pay issues are dealt with by the Promotion, Merit, and Tenure (PMT) Committee. Members of the PMT Committee are nominated by each interest group within the faculty and voted on by all faculty; members serve a two-year term. The PMT Committee meets in the spring of each year to review assistant and associate professors in their 6th year of service or who could be eligible for promotion earlier. The committee works with the faculty member to put together a dossier (an example is provided in Appendix III-A) of all of his or her teaching, research, and service into a complete and standardized form. This dossier is sent to five or six outside reviewers, both academics and other researchers. The PMT Committee incorporates the outside reviewers’ comments into their own assessment and provides a recommendation to the faculty. The Faculty Chair takes the PMT Committee’s recommendation and the faculty vote to the Dean, who makes an informed decision about the promotion. The Dean’s final decision is passed on to the Provost, who has the final authority over all promotions from junior professor to full professor.

Tenured professors also have opportunities for recognition, in the form of merit-pay increases. Based on research productivity and publications, student credit hours and evaluations, and service to the College, University, and outside communities, the PMT Committee decides which faculty members should be considered highly meritorious, meritorious, and non-meritorious. These recommendations are presented to the entire faculty, who vote on colleagues below them in rank (Professors – Assistant Professor – Associate Professor). The faculty votes are passed to the Faculty Chair, who does a thorough evaluation of each faculty member and recommends a merit-level and pay increase for each individual. The Dean takes the Faculty Chair’s recommendations and works with his or her support staff to provide the merit-pay to meritorious and highly-meritorious faculty.

Standardized student evaluations are the College’s main form of evaluating instructional quality and relevance. A sample of the evaluation used University-wide is provided in Appendix III-B. These evaluations are pertinent to both faculty promotion and merit-pay increases. Although the College had occasional peer-evaluations in the past, both faculty and administrators were unhappy with the process and actual implementation. The Faculty Chair is planning to work with the Center for Instructional Development and Research (a University group dedicated to helping faculty and colleges plan and implement quality instruction) to develop a meaningful and successful peer-evaluation process.

In addition to promotion and merit-pay, faculty are recognized with professorships, chairs, and sabbatical opportunities. Each year, the College hosts a College-wide recognition event, where the outstanding teaching and outstanding research faculty are presented with a small financial reward and recognized for their valuable contributions to the College. These awards are informally decided based on research dollars, student evaluations, and faculty and staff input.

Student Admission and Evaluation
Students interested in the MFR in Forest Management degree may come from different academic backgrounds (see Figure 1 in Standard II). Students who have an adequate background in natural or forest resources can proceed directly into the program. Undergraduate students enrolled in the Environmental Sciences and Natural Resource Management (ESRM) curriculum are advised to follow the Sustainable Forest Management (SFM) pathway if they wish to apply to the program. Students without the requisite background would take additional course work as described in the SFM undergraduate emphasis area.

Sample pages from the supplemental application, required by all applicants to CFR graduate programs, are provided on the following pages; reference to application standards and procedures are highlighted in grey.

View the sample pages

These following criteria are applied during the application process to the University’s Graduate School. The MFR program coordinator (which will rotate among faculty over time; Professor J.K. Agee will serve in academic year 2006-2007) will receive the application from the Office of Student and Academic Services, and circulate it to two other selected faculty. We expect, and will require, applicants to have a substantial natural resources background. A flow chart explaining that background and any makeup requirements is shown as Appendix II-B in Standard II. In addition to the usual Graduate School criteria (GRE scores, GPA >3.0), which is a first cut at acceptability, the reviewers are asked to rate the candidate in one of three categories: (1) insufficient natural resources background to proceed in a timely manner through the MFR program; (2) minor deficiencies that could be remedied with a couple of courses (which would not count towards the MFR degree); or (3) sufficiently complete background. Students completing the undergraduate SFM pathway in the College of Forest Resources would fall into Category 3 since the pathway is designed to feed directly into the MFR.

At the conclusion of the review of an applicant’s package, the program coordinator collates the reviews and assigns a 1, 2, or 3 to the file. Applicants in Category 1, although they may meet other Graduate School requirements, are denied entry into the MFR program. They may be encouraged to enroll as 5th year undergraduates to obtain the necessary background. Applicants in Category 2 will be admitted with a requirement that minor deficiencies be addressed, and that these deficiencies are in addition to all other program requirements. Applicants in Category 3 will be admitted without reservation. Recommendations are returned to the Student Services Office, which processes that decision and informs the applicant.

As an example of students who would be fully qualified, accepted with requirements to fulfill a few additional courses, and unacceptable for the MFR in Forest Management, sample transcripts are provided in Appendix III-C. The first transcript is from a student who completed his or her undergraduate curriculum at an already SAF-accredited program, thus the courses would easily meet the prerequisites of the MFR, as discussed in Standard II. The second transcript is from a student who has significant natural resource professional background and whose coursework would meet the prerequisites of the program. The third transcript is from a student currently enrolled in the ESRM (Environmental Science and Resource Management) degree program, but who is not taking the recommended courses in the Sustainable Forest Management Pathway; this student would not meet the prerequisites of the MFR and would not be admitted to the program.

Planning and Reviewing Academic Programs
The College uses numerous avenues to review existing and plan for new academic programs. As evidenced by the formation of the new ESRM degree program, and the phasing out of the previous undergraduate programs, the College is dedicated to providing high-quality academic programs that meet the current demands of the natural resource and management industries and professions. For example, during the planning stage of the ESRM program, a work group of ten professionals from state agencies and industry came together to provide feedback on the type of student they are looking for in new applicants. This provided the College with valuable information about the ideal student background when planning the new curriculum.
The College has a standing Curriculum Committee, composed of the Associate Dean of Academic Affairs, four faculty members, the Faculty Chair, and the Director of Student and Academic Services. This committee is responsible for overseeing the undergraduate and graduate programs of the College and reviews and approves all planned changes to courses and programs before those requiring faculty action are brought before the faculty for a final decision.

Assessing Educational Outcomes
The Paper Science and Engineering program is the only program in the College that has a systematic method for assessing educational outcomes, as required by the Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology (ABET). Although there is not a systematic method for assessing outcomes from the newly established ESRM or MFR (Forest Management) programs, the College does employ techniques to assess a variety of educational outcomes.

The most widely used review systems are the course evaluations filled out by students at the completion of each course. These evaluations are reviewed by the course instructors and College administration to assess curriculum content and instructor quality. These forms are standardized across the University, and as such are comparable across disciplines and courses. As examples, the educational outcomes and student comment forms are provided in Appendix III-B of this section.

An additional outcome assessment technique used by the College is an exit survey administered at the completion of each student’s undergraduate or graduate program. While this survey provides valuable input to the College regarding course content, faculty instruction, and the College community, it is voluntary, and thus is not representative of all students. A sample exit survey is provided in Appendix III-D of this section.

A technique that is less common, but projected to be used more frequently as more students take part in the SFM pathway of the ESRM degree program, is an employer evaluation completed after students participate in the summer internship program. Completed by the forestry professionals who worked with students during the summer, these evaluations are extremely valuable in assessing individual students and the outcome of their educational background while at the University. An example of the most recent summer internship evaluation is provided in Appendix III-E of this section.

The final educational outcome assessment that will be used in the Master of Forest Resources (Forest Management) is the capstone project required for each student enrolled in the program. The capstone project will incorporate the students’ knowledge and understanding of techniques and ideas taught in their courses, as well as experience from their professional and internship opportunities. In order for students to successfully complete the capstone project, they must demonstrate an expertise in forest management, including sampling techniques, policy and societal issues, and ecology and biological functions of forest and other natural systems. This outcome assessment will be extremely useful in the first few years in determining the MFR’s ability to meet the goals of the program.

Appendices: III-A, III-B, III-C, III-D, III-E

-> Next: Standard IV