Response to the Outside Review of Environmental Studies

Michael R. Edelstein, Ph.D., Convener

October 4, 1998

The completion of the Viederman/ Cellarius review allows for closure of the protracted program review period. The review findings are supportive of the program’s direction and do not oppose the program revisions enacted by the ES faculty a year ago and approved by two schools and the curriculum committee of the Faculty Assembly. Accordingly, we seek to immediately implement these changes in the new catalogue and for current new students. Revised language was submitted to VPAA in a timely fashion last spring. We also intend to proceed with revisions to our web page and in creating a long needed new brochure.

It should be noted that some of the key recommendations in the report are reflected in the already developed ES revisions, namely the effort to create more consolidated 300 level offerings and our corollary effort to begin reducing the number and frequency of electives, in part to avoid cancellation of key program electives, our introduction of a course in ecological economics, and our concept of pathways through the program to better link student employment objectives and the best combination of courses to get them where they want to go. We have a lot more work to do on pathways, but we are already on the way. We intend to further develop the pathway notion in support of a meeting with our students to be held within the next month.

In addition, the review points toward narrowing the mission of the program, something that the new focus on sustainability attempts to achieve. This mission focus drove the curricular changes that have been on hold pending completion of the review for nearly a year. Likewise, the recognition of the strength of our 400 level program and the recommendation that similar pedagogical approaches be tried elsewhere in the curriculum has also been anticipated by the new 300 level core course categories and some of the courses created to fulfill them.

Some areas of further potential improvement are suggested by the report, notably the suggestion that use of DMS courses be limited in favor of Fundamentals courses. Our convening group has now discussed this concept and a subcommittee is reviewing it more fully. The preliminary response, given participation of faculty who regularly teach the referenced courses, is that a true response to the reviewers’ intent might demand that new courses be created, since neither DMS nor Fundamentals courses really support our program’s needs. The fact that Principles of Chemistry was developed for nursing suggests a precedent for such a tailored approach. In fact, specialized courses were previously offered at Ramapo for the ES major.

The report suggests that graduate studies be pursued in tandem with an existing MS. rather than separately due to our limited resources. We have already been examining this possibility, albeit for the MESci/Educational Technology rather than the MALS. It has always been our position that a graduate program would require resources beyond adequate staffing for the undergraduate programs. Since we are still understaffed for the undergraduate program, clearly there is the need to look closely at resource issues in discussions leading to the letter of commitment. We note, however, that VPAA required us to do a further marketing study before proceeding to discuss the MES further. That study of ES alumni was completed in the spring of 1998 by the convener with the very able assistance of Sue Wong. The study is included in the five year review. It shows a very strong potential market for a masters in environmental studies at Ramapo from the nearly 1000 graduates of our environmental majors. In sum, the conditions exist whereby we should be allowed to proceed with our conceptualization of a program. We have impaneled a graduate committee to review alternative approaches. We also intend to seek having the issue of resources addressed in keeping with the outside review recommendations.

In particular, in our first meeting this term, the ES major reiterated its need for at least one new faculty line. We continue to require a policy person with strong pollution experience. The decision of the line’s focus requires further consideration, however, since the reviewer’s report particularly accents ecological economics (which need not be taught by an economist, per se). Perhaps both these positions should be filled. Justification will rely both upon the major’s needs, but also upon our very extensive support of the General Education program. Since Gen Ed considerations were successfully used to attain a new physics line despite few majors, it is clear that the combination of our Gen Ed service with our strong program will represent a strong rationale for these lines.

Additionally, the convening group discussion underscored our urgent need for staff support on behalf of our many laboratory courses and experiences. While all other TAS labs are supported with staff, no environmental lab received such support. Particularly given the mix of lab needs, ranging from Earth Science, Environmental Assessment, Computer Modeling, the GIS lab, and the Alternative Energy Center, the convening group determined that at least one full time position be assigned to us immediately in order to provide parity of support to that given for all other areas of TAS laboratory work.

The review highlights problems with the way the ES program has received administrative support and support within the current School structure. We would hope these problems can be discussed. While the report does not support as a panacea the re-creation of our lost School, it does provide a basis for discussing whether some other arrangement might improve our situation. If we fail to again win lines from the current school arrangement during the upcoming round of negotiations, then we will be forced to insist on some alternative arrangement that can responsibly address needs that have been ignored for a decade now. Comments about the structure of the college made by the reviewers should be referred to our Middle States committee.

The report highlights the need for team teaching opportunities in Environmental Studies. We have made precisely this argument in the past. We hope to find a mutually acceptable basis for addressing this need and ask VPAA to prepare some alternatives whereby our faculty can be offered the opportunity to collaborate on courses.

The report notes the limited role that adjuncts are able to play within a program. We can attempt to invite a greater role from our adjunct faculty, but it may be inconsistent with their rates of pay and their availability. While it will always be important for ES to involve seasoned professionals as adjuncts, our overall dependance upon adjuncts underscores the paucity of faculty resources. These resources are related to committee work, advisement and otehr program activities, not just teaching.

In sum, reviewers Cellarius and Viederman wrote a competent and constructive review that sought to shed light on many of the most crucial issues we face. It is reassuring that many of their comments are already anticipated in the direction taken by the convening group after its January 1997 workshop at Frost Valley. These directions should be further emphasized and developed given the comments. Some promising new ideas are also advanced, also deserving our consideration. The need for an effort to resolve long outstanding issues relating to program status and resources is underscored. The reviewers suggest a retreat, although we prefer an advance. In short, it may be time for a return to Frost Valley before winter sets in. We look forward to the opportunity to make progress in these areas as well with your involvement and support.

Reflecting these points, I ask that VPAA enter into a letter of commitment with ES addressing areas of administrative support for the program over the next five year period. As the reviewers note, our key issues have continued without resolution for a very long time. The conclusion of this review provides an appropriate juncture for addressing the program’s needs and potential.

Sincerely,

Michael R. Edesltein,

Convener