Contents
Cal Poly Pomona

P&R Responses for recommendation 53

Recommendation 53
Department Architecture
Consensus Opinion 17 out of 17 faculty/staff : With modifications
Consensus Explanation Response to Recommendations #52 and #53

We are pleased that our undergraduate program is being recommended for enhanced funding. However, we would also like to see enhanced funding for our graduate program. The P&R committee has recognized the quality, essentiality and demand for both programs and has also recognized that the undergraduate program faces serious and long-standing unmet needs for space and additional facilities. However, it is not clear that the University understands the extraordinary demand for admission that our department faces. We have the only impacted program on campus; this program has been highly impacted since its inception and it is growing more impacted every year. Last fall we had nearly 2000 applicants for about 100 places in the undergraduate program; applications have grown by around 200 students each year for the past five years. We are under enormous pressure from very highly qualified applicants, their parents and the profession to admit and graduate more students - at least double the number we have now. This cannot be accomplished without a commitment from the College and University to prioritize growth in the Architecture program and to provide sufficient funding for additional faculty and space. We also need recognition that our teaching loads are unreasonable, with nearly all our faculty teaching large lecture courses (80 – 100 students) with no additional compensation, a problem that will only get worse if we admit additional students.

We would like to maintain our leadership role in the area of Sustainability and in the University’s Climate Change initiative, and enhanced funding would allow us to pursue additional interdisciplinary relationships and research, and to better reach out across the university. Enhanced funding in the graduate program would be particularly likely to enhance our ability to attract research funding. As noted in these recommendations, we already have close relationships in research and teaching with the Departments of Landscape Architecture and Urban and Regional Planning and with the Lyle Center for Regenerative Studies that we think are essential and want to continue to develop. We also have ongoing relationships in research with faculty in the Department of Electrical Engineering and are developing teaching relationships with Civil Engineering. We are particularly interested in developing joint programs involving Building Information Management (BIM) with Civil Engineering and with the Construction Technology Program. Our ability to develop these promising relationships is dependent on receiving enhanced funding which would allow the faculty time and resources to pursue them.

As we noted in our response to Recommendation #3, we would prefer to stay in the College of Environmental Design, with LA, LCRS and URP, programs that share interests, cultures, courses and resources with us. While we are interested in collaborations with programs in the College of Engineering, we believe that our mutual interests are best served by collaborations between these Colleges with very different cultures, rather than in moving or merging programs that are now in separate Colleges. While we understand that elevating our Department to a School of Architecture is intended to increase our autonomy and access to resources, the definition of what this “School” is or might be is unclear and therefore we are taking no position on this issue at this time.

Minority Opinion NA out of NA faculty/staff : NA
Minority Explanation

Recommendations not submitted through the forms are available in this folder. They mainly consist of Microsoft Word or Adobe Acrobat documents. If none were submitted for this recommendation, the folder will be empty.