Though faculty and administrators seemed to agree with the overall mission of the newly proposed Integrative Science and Engineering Program, several raised concerns about its implementation during a forum held Thursday afternoon in Salomon 001. Around 60 faculty members attended the forum, which was moderated by Professor of English Leonard Tennenhouse and aimed to encourage open dialogue about the pros and cons of the program as well as possible alternatives.
Provost Robert Zimmer opened the discussion by outlining the original aims of the program, which he said operate on three levels. In addition to creating "an educational program that reflects the evolution of science in a multidisciplinary direction," the program also aims "to widen the hype for science students at Brown" and "use our capacity for innovation in this area to increase our attractiveness and distinctiveness to science students in high school," he said.
The program, which has not been approved and has received mixed faculty reaction since it was proposed last semester, would admit its first batch of 60 students in 2008 to a program in multidisciplinary science education. In addition to a set of new introductory courses, students in the program would be guaranteed at least one summer research opportunity.
Zimmer said though he believes in the program's ultimate goals, its realization has been marred with infrastructure concerns such as housing constraints, which he called "already critical." He said halving the number of students admitted to the program might impose less of a problem for the University.
"But I think Brown has the opportunity and the capacity to make a really bold educational statement," he said. "If we don't, we're just leaving the field open for somebody else to do it."
Professor of Biology Anne Fausto-Sterling agreed with Zimmer on this point. "I think I can speak for all of us in saying that there is a great opportunity to do something great with science education at Brown," she said.
But she added the proposal itself is "exceedingly vague" in how exactly it aims to "widen the pipeline for sciences at Brown." She suggested alternatives that could make use of Brown's existing resources, such as backing the "half-dozen small, under-supported multidisciplinary concentrations." She also suggested that the University "dedicate (itself) to developing two or three really stellar introductory science courses that are available to most students."
Many other faculty members shared the view that the proposed Integrative Science and Engineering Program had identified important goals for the sciences at Brown, including increasing science recruitment and retention, but that there may be other ways to achieve them.
One such faculty member, who preferred to remain anonymous, said: "Why stop at 30 or 60 students? Let's make it 120. Let's give fellowships to all science students entering Brown, and let's stop there."
However, some faculty said they believe this solution does not address the multidisciplinary demands of science today. Professor of Chemistry Peter Weber said a global problem such as energy "falls between disciplines, and this is what Brown stands for. We are stepping up to the task; we need to move boldly forward."
Professor of Biology Jonathan Waage, formerly a "vocal critic" of the proposal, concurred that the faculty now has the opportunity to move forward with the proposal, making it an exercise in "collaborative research and collaborative learning."
More pragmatic concerns about science recruitment and retention at Brown were emphasized by Associate Dean of the College David Targan and Dean of Admission Jim Miller '73. Miller said Brown needs "a program that is distinct and differentiates us from other institutions. We need to be able to define as clearly as we can the place of science at Brown."
