Contents
Cal Poly Pomona

P&R Responses for recommendation 91

Recommendation 91
Department Chemistry
Consensus Opinion 25 out of 25 faculty/staff : With modifications
Consensus Explanation The Chemistry Department unanimously agrees that the current P&R process lacks sufficient justification, is based upon faulty or incomplete data, promotes a highly personal administrative agenda, and summarily disregards the university community's duty of shared governance.

We disagree with the recommendation of stable funding. Enhanced funding is warranted. Our ability to develop an environmental focus is hampered by the current, inadequate funding level.

Response to Concerns

The quality of incoming transfer students is low compared to other programs

Without specific programs and real data, this statement is statistically insignificant. We do not control the admittance of transfer students.

The three year graduation rate for transfer students is low compared to other programs

This is a direct result of severe and chronic under-funding, causing too few sections of required courses to be offered. It is common for it to take up to a year for a student to get into a required course such as Organic Chemistry. This delay affects the student’s ability to take other upper-division courses requiring O. Chem. Thus, the hiring of new faculty and staff is fully justified.

Advising policies lack effectiveness dealing with students having a GPA at or below 2.2

There are no data to support this statement. Chemistry majors receive mandatory quarterly advising and we have a dedicated advisor to deal exclusively with at-risk students. The GPA data indicate 65-80% of our students are performing above average. This as a laudable achievement for a traditionally difficult subject; these data reflect rigorous instruction and the maintenance of high academic standards. As educators, we reject the idea of inflating grades or reducing rigor.

The program faculty is less diverse than the student population

As diversity statements were not made for each program, using this as a measure of quality is unfounded. We have a diverse faculty, and strive to increase diversity with our hires. One-third of our 2007 hires was from an underrepresented minority group. Increased funding would support these efforts.



Response to Recommendations

The PRC claims increased funding is difficult to endorse: we fundamentally disagree. Chemistry is a vital, growing program, but the success of our students has been hampered by years of chronic under-funding.

Chemistry is an experimental science; supplies and handling of hazardous waste are costly. We have no lab fees to offset these expenses. We seek to revitalize our labs into smaller-scale, discovery-based experiments pertinent to today’s social topics. Without enhanced funding, we cannot facilitate an environmentally friendly "green-themed" chemistry approach to our labs.

The PRC is concerned with a low MFR. This is the wrong figure of merit by which to evaluate our service-intensive department. Overall SFR is more illustrative. Moreover, as the PRC correctly notes that the majority of programs serviced by Chemistry courses (e.g., Biology and Animal Science) have experienced above-average growth, it is logically inconsistent to deny commensurate enhanced funding for Chemistry. Chemistry should not have to pay for the growth of other programs by providing additional service courses without additional funding.

The PRC claims to have identified programs with "environmental interests." This is clearly general verbiage applied to every program intended to force a singular, top-down vision onto the faculty. Curriculum content is the sole purview of the faculty, not the administration.

The PRC concluded that our campus "should emphasize studies of the environment." Chemistry has always been the central environmental science. The 2007 Nobel Prize in Chemistry was awarded to Dr. Ertland, a surface (not environmental) chemistry professor whose research explained the degradation of the ozone layer. We envision environmental and forensic chemistry as a logical extension of our renowned analytical program that is highly valued by local industry. Without enhanced funding to modernize our labs and make new hires, the creation of an environmental chemistry curriculum is not possible.

The PRC failed to recognize Chemistry’s community outreach. We are regularly featured in local media for our program and our nationally recognized, award-winning student chemistry club. Club activities are worthwhile and build an excellent reputation for CPP, but they must be supported in order to be successful.

Finally, our Dean has recommended we establish a Biochemistry degree within Chemistry. Enhanced funding would facilitate this important move forward.
Minority Opinion NA out of NA faculty/staff : NA
Minority Explanation

Recommendation 91
Department Computer Science
Consensus Opinion 7 out of 13 faculty/staff : Con
Consensus Explanation Computer Science Department supports Chemistry Department’s response to Recommendation #91.
Minority Opinion NA out of NA faculty/staff : NA
Minority Explanation

Recommendation 91
Department Computer Science
Consensus Opinion 7 out of 13 faculty/staff : Con
Consensus Explanation Computer Science Department supports Chemistry Department’s response to Recommendation #91.
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.