Several faculty members with reservations about the proposed Integrative Science and Engineering Program have said they do not oppose the program's goals, but are concerned about how the University plans to implement them.
The program, which a University committee is reviewing, aims to recruit 60 students each year to an undergraduate program in multidisciplinary science. In addition to traditional science concentration requirements, admitted students would be required to take five courses that emphasize interaction and collaboration among traditional science departments. All students in the program would also be guaranteed two University-funded summer research grants.
The proposal received mixed reviews at the February faculty meeting, said Professor of Geological Sciences Jan Tullis. "There were some people with questions and concerns, and others who stood up and said, 'Wow, this a great idea,'" she said. "But what I want to emphasize is that the two sides are not poles apart. Our goals are very similar, but we differ on their implementation."
The main objectives of the program are to increase the number of underrepresented groups and general matriculation in the sciences at Brown, as well as to create "citizen scientists" whose broad, multidisciplinary science background will "better prepare them for the collaborative nature of the real world," said Professor of Computer Science Thomas Dean, who headed the Science Cohort until last October.
"I think these are all very laudable goals," said Professor of Computer Sciences John Savage, adding that he applauds the efforts of his colleagues to further the multidisciplinary education that is the "hallmark of Brown."
"But I have my reservations about how successful the program will be in the long term," he said. "It seems unstable and is not well-grounded."
Savage said he is concerned that the core sequence of courses for the program may vary from year to year. "The content of these courses is in the hands of two faculty members, with the committee only providing broad guidelines. If the content is not reasonably consistent over a substantial period of time, the program will not be fully integrated into the curriculum. We need to ensure that there's continuity," he said.
The summer research grants guaranteed for students in the program have also generated some controversy. "There are already significantly more people applying for (Undergraduate Teaching and Research Assistantships) than get them," Tullis said. "I am left wondering how this program can guarantee some 'special' students the resources that others won't have access to."
Tullis said she fears this may make the program seem to favor its students over other science students at Brown, thereby fostering elitism, "which does not sound like a very Brown thing to do."
However, Dean said the program aims to encourage dynamic interplay between students and disciplines across campus, a process which will erode the perception of elitism rather than promote it.
"I think there are these goblins in the closet that people imagine," he said. "People are worried that we're trying to turn Brown into a (California Institute of Technology) or a (Massachusetts Institute of Technology), which is just not going to happen. In some senses we can't get better in the humanities, in terms of attracting the best and brightest. But where Brown could improve is to make the sciences 'uniquely Brown.' " He said the program's interdisciplinary nature places it "squarely within the concept of what a Brown education is."
But Savage said he has observed "lackluster" support from faculty regarding the proposal. "If the University is going to make this major push and have it succeed, it needs enthusiastic support from the faculty. It has to be completely owned by the faculty, they have to believe in it and feel a strong sense of ownership. And I don't believe that the current proposal does that," he said.
Savage said more backing could be achieved by encouraging increased dialogue between detractors and proponents of the program. "If the Science Cohort Committee had a dialogue going, we could accommodate (detractors') reservations and restructure the program, bringing everyone onboard," he said.
The issue will be further discussed at a faculty forum March 16 and will be voted on at a later date.
