A letter sent out by James Norris, dean of the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, has elicited a myriad of responses from LA&S department chairs.

The letter, which was sent out earlier this month, gave an evaluation of each college department in regard to faculty workload as defined by the American Association of University Professors’ (AAUP) statement on faculty workload.

The AAUP definition of workload includes course load, out-of-class research and other administrative and academic responsibilities. The letter also gave suggestions on how departments could go about making needed improvements in their program in order to meet LA&S expectations.

In specific, the letter addressed the general “misconception” of faculty workload, the expectation of faculty members in regard to services such as student advising and counseling and a serious inequality between departments in regard to faculty workload.

Several department chairs agreed with Norris’ sentiment on the ambiguity and misrepresentation of faculty workload.

“We have to look at workload and not just at course load,” said Biology Department Chair Marvin Starzyk. “There are many other things on the academic level that make a department look good.”

Lettie Wenner, chair of the political science department, said, “There’s a variety of ways which one can define the teaching load and workload.”

There has been some negative reaction in regard to a statement in the letter about student advising and counseling done by faculty members. “We should expect normal faculty to do student advising as a part of their normal workload,” the letter stated.

History Department Chair George Spencer voiced his concern for his department’s advising program. “Two years ago we concentrated a lot of our advising material into one office. It works extremely well because the students get what they need to know.”

Spencer said he is concerned that several statements in the LA&S letter suggest proposals against his department’s system. “We’re very happy with our system and don’t want to dismantle it in favor of an old-fashioned and inefficient system which doesn’t work very well.”

Starzyk said how the system works for the students is the most important. “You have to look at the discipline, the faculty you have and the size of your department when creating an advising program.”

Philosophy Department Chair William Tolhurst said his department’s advising program already fits within the letter’s guidelines.

“We expect all of our faculty members to be available for student advising,” Tolhurst said. “We do have a small department and a relatively small amount of majors. I don’t know if what works for us will work for the larger departments.”

Department chairs also gave their opinions on the evaluation process and how suggestions given by the college might affect their departments.

“I think the letter is pretty good for us,” Starzyk said. “The faculty in this department (biology) do an outstanding job.”

Richard Johannesen, communication studies department chair, said, “I don’t believe it will have an immediate impact. I think it’s a worthwhile effort for the college to consider equality in the workloads.”

“What we will do as a result of the letter is examine how we will do more to increase the course load component of our workload,” said Psychology Department Chair Frederick Schawantes. “The letter is asking the department to serve better the needs of the students without raising costs.”

Tolhurst said his department will see a slight increase in workload. “I believe there will be some departments in the college which will have to do more than we will.”

“Whether it (the letter) will have an effect on the workload has yet to be seen,” Spencer said. “There were a number of things in our letter that were very controversial.”