Cal Poly Pomona

P&R Responses for recommendation 62

Recommendation 62
Department Anthropology Program
Consensus Opinion 13 out of 13 faculty/staff : Pro
Consensus Explanation The Anthropology Program

The faculty associated with the Anthropology program feel that the P & R process is fatally flawed due to a grossly inadequate process of consultation and almost non-existent information sharing, which resulted in a set of recommendations for sweeping changes based on unspecified, poorly defined and often contradictory criteria. In addition, despite PRPC’s claimed “desire to use mission-driven criteria for budget allocation rather than historical FTE targets”, the recommendations return again and again to numerical performance as measures of educational value. Moreover, there is no consistency regarding the desired balance between building majors and GE/service teaching. Consequently, the P&R process as imposed would not result in a strong, new identity, merely in a mistaken identity. Finally, we have consulted with colleagues in other programs and it is clear that our strenuous objections to the P& R process reflect the majority opinion among University faculty.

We thank the Committee for their kind observations regarding our essentiality and quality. We wish to account for the problems also mentioned. The issues of “critical mass” and viability do not seem valid to us; we have a high SFR, a growing number of majors, good numbers of students in internships, growing numbers of students admitted to strong graduate programs and moving into good professional situations. We have alumni actively involved with the program. The percentage of students with a GPA below 2.2 may be moderately high because our program is rigorous and writing-intensive. Our advising efforts are consciously directed at the less productive students.

Since it was never clear to us what the template called for, we can hardly be faulted for a mal-alignment of the Opportunity Analysis. The implementation of our Cultural Resource Management option was a strategic move to exploit opportunities for growth in the field. It has been very successful in drawing new students into the major and igniting interest in the applications of anthropology in the community setting.

We have known about synergy for the lifetime of our field of study, since the four sub-fields stimulate each other from their divergent perspectives and mutually fuel the development of the discipline. We have long-standing relationships with the programs mentioned in the recommendations and many others. We already attempt to recruit students and increase enrollment through collaboration with these partners. As for the Masters program mentioned, Anthropology has never proposed such a program, except as part of a Departmental initiative, and this has never been formally articulated, either. Any additional faculty we may have requested would replace those retiring. We have over fifty students in the major. Is this too few for somebody?

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.