The mission of the Wiess School of Natural Sciences with regard to faculty and research issues is:
Before detailing the recommendations of the sub-committee on faculty issues, it is worth outlining the current status of the Wiess School of Natural Sciences.
The Wiess School of Natural Sciences consists of seven Departments: Biochemistry and Cell Biology, Chemistry, Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, Geology and Geophysics, Mathematics, Physics, and Space Physics and Astronomy. The number of tenured or tenure track faculty for each department is given in Figure 1 (figures at end of this Appendix), while the number of graduate students is given in Figure 2. Given that the number of graduate students in any one program is dependent to a certain degree on the number of faculty, and it is difficult based on the vastly different sizes of the Departments within the Wiess School to readily compare these parameters, Figure 3 plots the average number of graduate students per faculty member.
The ability of faculty to attract graduate students is inexorably linked to the availability of research grants. In regard to this, the percentage of faculty with Federal grants is shown in Figure 4. It should be noted that these data do not include Welch Foundation grants, since faculty outside of Texas are ineligible, making comparison with other schools (see section 2.1.2) difficult.
The National Research Council conducts a survey in order to rank the graduate schools in the Natural Sciences and other fields. Faculty and Deans in various institutions are canvassed on their views of each research program, and these data are used to rank departments within each scientific discipline. The results are tabulated for each area of science along with various parameters not directly used in the assessment of each department. Although the value of the NRC rankings is questionable, they are often used by potential graduate students to determine the schools to which they apply. We note for various reasons that not all of the Wiess School departments are represented in the NRC rankings.
A cursory correlation of the rankings with respect to the various parameters listed indicate that the (average) number of citations per faculty is the only one with a positive correlation. While this parameter is a somewhat prosaic, it is highly correlated with the visibility and perceived stature of a Department. The question of how Rice should increase its perceived and actual visibility and stature is dealt with in the main text of this document; however, it is worth comparing the data (where available) for Rice's departments with the top 10 schools in each discipline. While only certain of Rice's departments are represented in the NRC report, the trends discussed below appear general.
In comparison with the top 10 schools for each discipline, Rice's departments are generally smaller, or towards the low end of the range. Based on this comparison it is possible to suggest which schools each Department within the Wiess School should be able to equal in reputation, e.g., Biochemistry (Stanford and Harvard), Chemistry (Columbia), Mathematics (Columbia), and Physics (Stanford).
In regard to the average number of graduate students per faculty with respect to the top 10 schools for each discipline, the Wiess School compares favorably. Unless the University provides significant support for graduate student stipend (as is done in schools with very large service teaching, e.g., UC Berkeley), the number of students is linked to the ability of faculty to raise research grants. It is clear that in this regard the Wiess School's faculty are comparable to their colleagues at the top 10 schools.
The visibility of a department is dependent on the ability of the faculty to perform high level research, report it in top journals, and for it to be read and acknowledged. The Wiess School's faculty are generally all active in research and publish their work. Furthermore, the number of publications per faculty is comparable to many top 10 schools. However, where the Wiess School clearly is behind or towards the low end of the best departments is in citations per faculty. Although this latter parameter can be skewed by self-citations, it is clearly related to visibility. Each department within Rice needs to decide whether this is a factor of field or research, research focus, or poor "publicity." Whatever the reason, this is one area that the Wiess School departments need to improve.
The mean year to degree for graduate students is not directly related to this sub-committee, but its inclusion in the NRC rankings make it appropriate to be discussed with respect to our rankings. The Wiess School, while comparable to top 10 departments, still has a long mean year to degree. This is another area in which individual departments and the Wiess School need to act.
During the last decade, there has been a fundamental shift in the requirements for secretarial and administrative support for faculty and departments. These changes have been brought on by a number of factors; however, the most significant are the increased use of personal computers and the changes in funding sources and opportunities.
The advent of inexpensive personal computers and associated software for technical writing has led to the majority of publications being prepared by the faculty and/or their research groups instead of by secretarial help. As a result of this shift, the University (in common with many similar institutions) reduced the ratio of administration staff to faculty within a department. Unfortunately, although the need for administrative support has not decreased, its focus has changed. In fact, the accounting and general administrative duties are now more significant in time and expertise than the previous role of typing manuscripts and correspondence. The increase in administrative duties forced on faculty has arisen from the changes in research funding. Whereas, previously it was common for each faculty member to have one or two significant research grants, changes in Federal funding have caused some faculty to have as many as a dozen research accounts. Each grant requires significant tracking and accounting. These duties are very time consuming for faculty and often are outside of the training of traditional secretarial personnel. This represents one of the many areas in which departments and faculty have a significant need for skilled, dedicated, and effective administrative support.
As administrative demands on departments and faculty increase, effective administrative support must also increase within the appropriate departments. The University has undertaken a significant expansion of administration; however, few of the additional staff have been in the departments where they are needed and would provide major impact. If departments' faculties are to move forward without becoming "bogged down" in administrative duties, then there needs to be a significant reallocation of administrative support back into the departments. In some cases, the staff support is a matter for the division as a whole, but the differing and sometimes disparate needs of departments must be recognized.
If the strategic plan for Rice and the Wiess School is to create a world class reputation for scientific research and teaching, then the continued recruitment and promotion of the highest quality faculty is vital. Clearly, any position in addition to the present faculty size will require significant funding for salaries, as well as start-up and infrastructure (laboratory space, etc.). However, increased funding will also be required for replacing present positions vacated due to retirements and other departures. In order for Rice to compete with other institutions, Rice must be competitive in all hiring irrespective of professorial level.
While faculty salaries, start-up and laboratory infrastructure costs have been, and to a large extent must continue to be, funded through the University Endowment, additional sources should be pursued. Specific actions would include the creation of endowed chairs from industrial donors. This approach may follow the manner of many Chairs at institutions such as MIT. The Wiess School, the President's Office, and the Development Office should work together to investigate potential sources. Any such position should be used not to replace present funding sources, but to add new faculty.
The position of department chair (and other administrative positions) is becoming increasingly burdensome with the various bureaucratic requirements of both the University and funding agencies. This burden needs to be recognized and addressed by the University administration.
The current practice of cycling faculty through department Chair positions without research compensation, and minimal salary compensation, is deleterious to the health of the University. This practice creates a number of serious problems. For example, mid-career faculty who can provide energetic leadership are also in the most productive years of their research careers. Holding the Chair of a department can have a serious negative impact on a research career if the Chair devotes the time required to actively lead a department. Obviously any Chair has to balance the competing demands of the position and his/her own research program. This problem may be exacerbated in the next few years, as many faculty retire and the Chairs' time will be increasingly absorbed in faculty replacement.
Although a strong Chair for each Department is desirable, Chairs should not have increased power over the faculty. The collective wisdom of the faculty within a department is clearly the best way to build a better department. What should be sought, however, is a situation in which the best people are encouraged to take Chair positions and be able to pay full attention to their duties.
We suggest that financial compensation in the form of 1 to 1-1/2 months of summer salary, and research compensation, in the form of postdoctoral support, be attached to the Chair positions to ensure continuity of research programs and effective leadership. The postdoctoral fellows and research associates may also have modest teaching duties (i.e., be an instructor).
In addition to the traditional responsibilities associated with the position of Chair, we feel that Department Chairs must be encouraged to take an active role in promoting the careers of new junior faculty members, see 3.1.3.
Department Chairs can take a number of steps to enhance the visibility of junior faculty. Among these are seeking speaking engagements at prominent universities and meetings for young faculty, and nominations of junior faculty for society awards and Federal young investigator awards (see 3.1.5). {Chairs should also nominate senior faculty for awards!} The Chairs should also assign mentors to junior faculty to ensure that they are provided the best opportunity to attain recognition and tenure. In many departments the mentor system is aimed at assisting teaching; however, it should be extended to research. We propose that, where possible, each junior faculty member be assigned two mentors at the rank of full professor. One would be in the research sub-area of the junior faculty member, and the other would be in a related field. The former will have a better knowledge of the research concerns, while the latter should be used to help in the general assistance of the faculty member's development.
Due to the different circumstances appropriate for tenure in different subject areas, each Department should be left to deal with the question of the requirements for tenure as appropriate. The presence of a set of strict guidelines will promote the idea of junior faculty "playing the game" and not fulfill the real goal of tenure: topnotch research and teaching.
Given the small size of Rice and hence the limited faculty positions available, it is impossible for Rice to cover all aspects of any area of science. Thus, Rice can expect to achieve world-class status only in a few key areas. However, this effort cannot be to the detriment of the ability of the faculty to provide the best education for our undergraduates and graduates. One solution to the issue of limited faculty resources is that appointments in these key areas should where possible (and given the proviso that Rice should at all times hire the very best faculty, see 3.1.1) have overlap with traditionally weaker areas (and Departments) in the Wiess School. In this regard, the weaker areas will be strengthened with excellent faculty, while the faculty will be attracted to Rice by the stronger Department or research area. Thus, we should look to supporting joint appointments across the School and, where appropriate, across the University.
The decision making for any hire must still reside with the main department. It would be unacceptable for a strong department to dictate a hire choice to a weaker department. However, strong departments/areas should be conscious of the needs of weaker areas.
There will be no additional cost involved in this proposal over the costs normally expected for a hire at the appropriate level (see 3.1.1).
Although the reputation of the Wiess School can eventually be improved by new additions to the faculty (3.1.1), it is to the current faculty that the University must look for the prestige to attract new faculty and enhance the reputation of the University over the next decade. We believe that the present faculty is of a higher quality than the general external perception. This disparity should be addressed in the following manner: (a) nomination of faculty for awards where appropriate, (b) broader and more complete dissemination of Rice's scientific accomplishments, (c) encouragement of sabbatical visitors to Rice, (d) University support for faculty in Editorial positions for major international journals, and (e) strong placement of our graduates in academia.
(a) The Wiess School in general and the Departments in particular must actively embark on a course of appropriate self-promotion. Many of our faculty have been recognized internationally and nationally with major awards. However, in comparison to the quality of the science performed at Rice, these numbers are significantly lower than at comparable institutions. Each Department should form a committee to obtain information on the range of awards and prizes in each field, nominate the most appropriate faculty, and support efforts to election of faculty to the learned societies (e.g., National Academy of Sciences, etc.). This effort will require only minimal funds, but is highly labor intensive. However, the exposure of the faculty and the University upon receipt of awards (at all levels) enhances the visibility (and reputation) of the University as a whole. This has been clearly demonstrated by the award of the Nobel Prize in Chemistry to Bob Curl and Rick Smalley.
(b) Enhancement of the outside perception of our faculty will be achieved by broader dissemination of Rice accomplishments, not only in scientific publications but in other venues (TV, scientific talks, newspapers, brochures, etc.). We strongly recommend that Rice aggressively invest in public relation activities in science and technology. A specific action is to hire an additional technically educated science writer to supplement the excellent work done by Lia Unrau. The main activity for this writer will be to promote the research activities of Rice faculty in the popular press.
(c) Rice is in the enviable position of being arguably the best private institution in the southern United States between Duke University and CalTech. This geographic region corresponds to one of the most rapidly growing parts of the U.S. Our geographic position, however, has certain drawbacks: we are far from the perceived intellectual centers of the nation in the Northeast and on the West Coast, and we are far from the center of Federal government. As a result we need to make special efforts to insure that we are part of the U.S. intellectual mainstream. In addition to fine University and Department lecture series, one way to enhance the flow of ideas through the Rice community is to encourage scientists to visit Rice while on sabbatical leave. We suggest that the University establish an endowment, or series of endowments, to bring scientists to Rice for sabbatical research. Typically scientists are required to raise about 2/3 of their sabbatical salary from research contracts or other sources. Providing a means of funding sabbatical leave for outside scientists would be a powerful draw to Rice. A similar endowment established by the Cecil Green Foundation at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography has been remarkably successful.
(d) Many of the faculty are Editors or Editorial Board members of major international scientific journals. While this effort does not bring in direct recognition for the science at Rice, it is nonetheless an important way that faculty are recognized as leaders in a particular field. In addition, it results in the Rice name being disseminated in each Journal each month and thus heightens the awareness of the University. The University should recognize and assist faculty who have such commitments.
Development of new programs to assist in identifying and exploiting new sources for research funds in an era of declining Federal funding should be one of the main strategic issues for the Wiess School.
Rice, like other research Universities, faces vital strategic difficulties for obtaining adequate research funds to carry out scientific research, especially in laboratory sciences. If current trends continue at the Federal level, Rice will either have to find major new sources of research revenue or face an overall decline in its ability to carry out cutting-edge research. If the University and the Wiess School wish to aim at scientific excellence in research, we must not forget that the ability to attract significant and continued research funding is the key to the success of the sciences at Rice.
The most important action item in this regard is for the Vice Provost for Research and Graduate Studies to determine, on an individual Departmental (or subject area) basis, the present and future (changing) needs. The Vice Provost's office should then work with each Department and the Development Office to provide expanded funding opportunities. The Vice Provost's office should identify, department by department, administrative personnel and resources available for help with proposal writing, etc. Comparisons of funds attracted and number of proposals written per year, which departments are working well from faculty perspective, would be helpful. Another goal is improved quality and quantity of information available regarding non-agency funding. The faculty should be helped to understand how major (private and corporate) donors should be courted and how to respond to overtures. The faculty should be used as a source of information and assistance in the funding efforts of the University. After all, the faculty are undoubtedly Rice's greatest permanent asset.
A new route to research funding may involve the aggressive commercialization of Rice intellectual property. The creation of an entity for technology transfer would assist in bringing in to Rice royalties from Patents and Licenses. However, it may be possible for an external organization to act as a technology clearing house for the research programs at Rice. Industrial, rather than federal, funding is available, but isolating the correct contact and funding approach involves significant time commitments on the part of the faculty. The Vice Provost's Office or similar entity could act to provide a contact service for the faculty by identifying suitable collaborations. Such a program will take a significant commitment but should yield funding opportunities previously unexplored and unexploited.
Graduate students play an essential role in the conduct of research, and their support is one of the major costs of doing effective research in the sciences. Currently, the university supports graduate students for the first two semesters of residence, after which they are paid from individual research grants or training grants. Three possible actions may be taken independently or in concert.
First, a portion of the graduate student fringe benefit currently charged to research grants should be returned to the department for use in the support of graduate students. This support could take the form of emergency support when a faculty advisor has a temporary lapse in external funding. As it now stands, the system encourages faculty to take graduate students with first-year fellowships that later they may not be able to support. Since grant cycles are much shorter than graduate student cycles, a safety net is needed. Such funds are most effectively pooled and dispersed at the Divisional rather than Departmental level, because it is a high-variance problem. A given department, particularly a small one, may have no need for such funds in some years and a high need the next, so that a small annual budget is not very helpful. In addition, central administration of such funds would maintain more uniform controls. For example, these funds for graduate student support should not be available to faculty taking summer salary.
Second, a portion of graduate student stipends should be provided from University funds for those graduate students required to assist in teaching for more than two semesters. Students should not be required to teach more than two semesters without partial/full university support, in particular for those faculty with limited funding.
Third, an endowed fund should be established to provide Departmental or Divisional named graduate and postdoctoral fellowships. These positions would aid in recruiting graduate students and scientists of exceptional caliber.
It is expected that the Development office will have a significant stake in all these action items. Closer collaboration between the Wiess School (and the individual departments) with the Development Office is required.
Graduate student recruitment is crucial to the continued and increased success of our research programs. Divisional coordination of graduate recruitment is needed to ensure that the highest quality graduate students apply to Rice and to prevent needless duplication of effort. The value of departmental brochures, and the increasing use of departmental home pages, should be emphasized. The Wiess School should consider hiring a person into the division whose job is graduate recruiting. This person would be responsible for maintaining home pages for Departments and helping individual research groups establish and maintain home pages, as well as providing assistance in producing brochures. Such a person could take responsibility for mailing brochures to academic departments and could represent Rice at graduate recruitment fairs, which are especially important in minority recruitment. The cost is that of one full-time staff member, but since this person reduces the departmental staff burden, economies may be realized.
With the increased use of electronic communications, the Wiess School should set up recruitment-oriented Departmental Web pages describing faculty research interests, graduate requirements, and on-line applications for admission as is already conducted by some departments. This effort will require the assistance of computer support personnel. Increased use of Web sites for recruiting and application will decrease current costs associated with production and mailing of departmental brochures and applications, especially for overseas applicants. This approach may therefore save money in the long run.
Funds should be established that would be used on a Department by Department basis for graduate recruitment. This effort will involve several possible processes, including regular visits to potential feeder departments by faculty or present graduate students who are alumni of these feeder departments, the option to abolish the application fee for graduate admissions, etc. The Office of Vice-Provost for Graduate Studies and Research should provide funding and support for these tasks.
As administrative demands on departments increase, effective administrative support must also increase. Technical staff support is of increasing importance, especially for systems support for computation and information. We must recognize clearly the importance of adequate staff support and its cost. In some cases, the staff support is a matter for the division as a whole, but different departments will have very different needs.
This arena, as indicated in the introductory section, will be a continuing problem for the future. This challenge will not be simply "solved," as technical requirements will surely evolve as time goes by.
Rice's library does not yet match the first-rate quality of the university as a whole, with collections lagging far behind comparable universities. This problem is perhaps most solvable in the sciences, where materials date more quickly and a decent library can be attained with a healthy allocation to current journals. However, no library can acquire everything, and one of Rice's size particularly needs to take steps to compensate for the inevitable gaps. Rice should explore cooperative agreements with libraries in other regional universities and look into negotiating contracts for overnight delivery of interlibrary loan materials.
Graduate students often work very late, and faculty are especially likely to have time for library work during student vacations. The library must extend its hours to reflect these needs. Rice as a community does not turn off its brain at night or during vacations. Given that the graduate students, postdoctoral fellows and faculty are in fact the major users of the journal collection (and make up nearly 1/2 of the University population), the practice of the Library closing at 6:00 pm during spring break is totally unacceptable. The University should extend summer and spring break hours at least to 9:00 pm.
The science literature will probably go electronic faster than most other fields, and the library needs to commit the financial resources and personnel to facilitate this change. Some progress has been made, especially in making bibliographic resources available over the network, and this effort should continue to receive high priority. A start would be to "catalogue" electronic journals and provide preprint servers so that one can search and access these resources in some central manner. In order to facilitate such a shift, the Library would have to hire a computerized "electronic librarian."
Computer support should be provided for faculty, including Web page development and periodic hardware and software upgrades. Faculty use office computers extensively in both the teaching and service components of their work, and yet no funding after initial start-up funds is supplied to update this hardware as it becomes obsolete. Purchase from research grants of computers to be used for teaching and committee work, even in part, is not permitted. Each full-time faculty member should be provided a budget of ca. $3000 every 4 years to upgrade computer hardware, beginning in the fourth year of employment at Rice (or at the appointment of tenure?). Divisional support should be available for Web page development, potentially in the form of a Divisional Web consultant assisted by knowledgeable undergraduates.
A recurring problem is replacement of research equipment. In many fields, the quality of research results depends as much on the quality of the research facilities as the researchers themselves. Although Rice has traditionally been generous with matching funds for equipment purchased on research contracts, the rate of individual PI requests exceeds the Rice funds available for matching. Replacement is now severe for research computing given the rate at which computer technology is evolving. Machines for research computing and general computing (word processing, accounting and so on) are obsolete on a 3-year cycle (see 3.2.6).
We propose that the university establish a privately funded endowment for continual replacement of research equipment. The endowment income would be used to provide matching funds for equipment requests to various federal agencies. It would also be used to purchase equipment which is disallowed on federal contracts, for example, personal computers used for word processing and accounting, and for other small item (< $25,000) equipment. An adequately funded endowment will enable continual replacement of computing and other research equipment across campus, and would essentially serve as an equipment depreciation fund. This fund will also permit acquisition of small research and teaching equipment for which federal funding is not available.
Rice is justifiably proud that our undergraduates are taught by regular faculty. However, the largest service courses can impose an unusual burden on the faculty assigned to them, and we should seek ways to reduce this burden. For example, while lecture courses must continue to be taught by regular faculty where possible, the burden could be reduced, and the courses improved, if the courses had more professional support. At some universities support is provided by hiring recent Ph.D.s, with responsibility for assisting the professors. Such assistance might take the form of setting up demonstrations, preparing visual aids, answering questions at office hours or via E-mail, managing a course Web-page or news group, record-keeping, grading, or finding library materials.
Laboratory courses that have a large amount of set-up time and extensive contact hours can sometimes be so time-demanding that they are better managed by professionals who do not also have to worry about research productivity. The Biosciences lab program provides a good example of how effective lab courses can be largely taught by professionals not on the tenure track. Such positions should be long-term to ensure continuity and should be filled with Ph.D.s who have a special interest in, and aptitude for, teaching.
The Evans Instructorships in Mathematics and the Huxley Instructorships in Ecology and Evolutionary Biology provide models of effective use of non- traditional faculty positions that could be emulated more widely. The people filling these positions can help counteract two disadvantages of Rice's small size. First, since the positions are temporary, they bring a constant source of new blood, fresh ideas, and potential for research collaboration with permanent faculty. Second, they permit a cost-effective way to expand the number of teachers and the range of courses offered. On the negative side, the instructors will not build graduate programs at Rice, unlike regular faculty. In addition, because research and teaching are complementary, a two-tier system, with permanent faculty focused on research and vagabond scholars specializing on teaching, is undesirable. On balance, such positions are most worthwhile when their numbers are not too large, and when the instructors can both do a good job of teaching and do research so that the position serves a stepping stone to a tenure-track job elsewhere. Such positions should be filled by people who can do research without their own labs: for example, theoretical scientists or experimentalists capable of effective collaboration with permanent faculty.
With increasing inclusion of high technology in the classroom, in particular the use of computer aided lectures and demonstrations, there is a need for training of faculty and graduate teaching assistants. We propose that classes be given on a voluntary attendance basis for faculty and graduate students to learn specific innovations in teaching methods. This class setting would include new software as well as hardware and would take place once or twice a year to allow those interested faculty to become acquainted with new teaching methods.
A Curriculum Committee should be formed with the goal of exploring opportunities for cross-departmental courses. There are two primary motivations for this undertaking: 1) Modern science and technology is becoming increasingly collaborative, with collaborations extending beyond the confines a single academic discipline Ñ this trend should be reflected in our course offerings. 2) Several course topics are taught in more than one department, leading to duplication in teaching efforts. For example, undergraduate quantum mechanics is taught in the Physics, Chemistry, and the Electrical and Computer Engineering departments. To undertake these curricular changes effectively, initiative of the faculty will be required to develop new courses with colleagues in other departments. These new courses will likely be graduate courses or upper division undergraduate courses that reflect the research conducted at Rice. These courses should be solicited by the Dean's office. The new courses may require Departments to reexamine their own course offerings to free teaching time for the new courses. The Deans of Natural Sciences and Engineering should appoint a committee of faculty members from both divisions to address the issue of overlapping course offerings and recommend specific changes. Integration may free sufficient teaching time to staff the new interdisciplinary courses.
This page is maintained by Rachel Miller (mail to:
rmiller@rice.edu)
Created 01-Apr-97
Updated 27-May-97
