2009 NAAB APR + Addenda

2009ArchitectureProgramReport Chancellor: BernadetteGrayLittle,PhD 230StrongHall Lawrence,KS66045 InterimProvost&ExecutiveViceChancellor: DannyAnderson,PhD Dean: JohnGaunt,FAIA ArchitectureDept.Chair: KeithDiazMoore,PhD,AIA 1465JayhawkBlvd.,Marvin205 Lawrence,KS660457614 (T)785.864.5088 (F)785.864.5185 (E)[email protected] NAABAccreditedDegree: MasterofArchitecture TrackI:5+Year TrackIII:Bachelors+3+Year 5.4.7ArtCenter,LEEDPlatinumDesignBuildProjectbyStudio804 Table of Contents Part I: Introduction to the Program 1 Section I.1 – History and Description of the Institution 1 Section I.2 – Institutional Mission 2 Section I.3 – Program History 4 Section I.4 – Program Mission 5 Section I.5 – Program Self-Assessment 10 Part II: Progress Since the Last Visit 17 Section II.1 – Summary of Responses to the Team Findings 17 Section II.2 – Summary of Responses to Changes in the NAAB Conditions 32 Part III: Compliance with the Conditions for Accreditation 34 Section III.1 – Program Response to the NAAB Perspectives 34 Section III.2 – Program Self-Assessment Procedures 49 Section III.3 – Public Information 54 Section III.4 – Social Equity 55 Section III.5 – Studio Culture 58 Section III.6 – Human Resources 59 Section III.7 – Human Resource Development 75 Section III.8 – Physical Resources 90 Section III.9 – Informational Resources 96 Section III.10 – Financial Resources 113 Section III.11 – Administrative Structure 118 Section III.12 – Professional Degrees and Curriculum 121 Section III.13 – Student Performance Criteria 134 Part IV: Supplemental Information 136 Section IV.1 – Student Progress Evaluation Procedures 136 Section IV.2 – Studio Culture Policy 139 Section IV.3 – Course Descriptions 147 Section IV.4 – Faculty Resumes 218 Section IV.5 – Visiting Team Report from Previous Visit 246 Section IV.6 – Annual Reports 282 Section IV.7 – Catalogs 304 Section IV.8 – NAAB Responses to Annual Reports 323 Appendices Appendix A: Mission (“Our Story”) 329 Appendix B: Learning/Teaching Assessments 334 Appendix C: Alumni Survey, Exit Interview Guide, Student Survey &Assessment of General Education 346 Appendix D: Floor Plans 357 Appendix E: Supporting Material 367 Appendix E.1: Information on Accessing NAAB Conditions for Accreditation 367 Appendix E.2: Criteria for Promotion & Tenure 374 Appendix E.3: Faculty Scholarship Symposia 381 Appendix E.4: Institutional Accreditation 384 ADDENDA As per the review of the Architecture Program Report (APR) by Stephan Pappas, AIA, Visiting Team Chair, received by the program on October 21, 2010, the Architecture Department at the University of Kansas has been requested to provide additional information in regard to four different sections of the APR. This additional information is presented below in numerical order. I.5. PROGRAM SELF ASSESSMENT Request: More Information on a Plan to Address Identified Challenges Section I.5.2 of the APR identifies seven (7) Program Weaknesses. The planned response to each will be described below. I.5.2.A Physical Resources: _Plan to Address Challenges Four main physical resource issues were identified in the APR: Lack of Common Space; Lack of a Lecture Hall; (Shortage of) Design-Build Workshop and Studio Space; and the Problem of (geographical) Dispersion. The School continues to have a plan for a 5,000sf addition to the south of Marvin Hall which would effectively create a common space/foyer where the current “Jury Room” is and the new addition would house review space and a 120-seat lecture hall. Called the “Pavilion,” fundraising has continued to fund this project but still remains approximately $1.6 million short of the necessary funds to construct. The shortage of Design-Build Workshop and Studio Space has been successfully addressed through the acquisition of a 67,000sf warehouse in east Lawrence (as hinted at in the APR, p.14). Interior build-out commenced Nov 1 with anticipated occupation by Studio 804 for the Spring Semester of 2010 and by two additional “hands-on” studios (Arch 409) beginning in the 2010-11 Academic Year. The acquisition of this warehouse building does increase the geographical dispersion of the program and its latent impact on our sense of community. Currently, we now utilize space in Marvin Hall, Marvin Studios, Snow Hall, a West Campus Warehouse and now a warehouse in an east Lawrence Business Park; five different buildings on two different sides of town. The plan to address these challenges includes short-term, mid-term and long-term approaches. Short-term, we are implementing virtual strategies such as having the School maintain a Facebook and Linked-In site. Mid-term, the strategy is to eventually prove successful in building the Pavilion which will greatly assist in having almost all of our required courses taught in that lecture hall as well as providing a community space for social functions and exhibition space. Long-term we believe the appropriate strategy is to pursue the development of a new building. Marvin Hall has been home to the program since its inception almost 100 years ago and was given a 30- year remodel in 1982, which is showing its age. Marvin Studios were given a 10-year 20009 APR – University of Kansas – Addenda Page 1 of 7 remodel in 2004, moving past its half-life this year. We believe that the constraints of the physical environment are such that it now is constraining flexibility and innovation in instructional delivery and that a bold new sustainable environment that can take the program through the next 100 years will be required by 2030. I.5.2.B Attrition in FT Faculty: _Plan to Address Challenges This is a difficult issue to address in a period of budget constriction. We refer you to our plan outlined on page 72 of the APR (Section III.6.6.A.i: Recommendation for Improvement). I.5.2.C Need for “Professor of Practice” : _Plan to Address Challenges The above discussion makes reference to the “Professor of Practice” as a key aspect to our strategy of responding to this faculty attrition. We are pleased to report that as of October, our Department was successful in changing the university human resource policy to allow the appointment of “Professors of the Practice.” As referenced above, we believe we need to be proactive in recalibrating our faculty mix to be more in-line with the instructional resource mix found across accredited programs nationally (please see pp.71-72 in the APR). I.5.2.D Lack of Diversity of Faculty Profile: _Plan to Address Challenges Our plan for addressing this issue is to continue what we believe has proven to be a successful plan to-date. This past year we tenured a female faculty member and the three faculty currently on tenure-track are all from underrepresented populations within our faculty. Our current search has a very strong diversity candidate whom we hope to hire (Asian/Female). If this works, this will be a string of five diversity hires replacing five Caucasian males over the course of seven years. I.5.2.E Inability to Meet Student Demand: _Plan to Address Challenges Our current faculty attrition and our limited physical resources, this will remain a weakness. Given this circumstance, our current plan is to maintain the program quality first, the program size second and consider growth only third. Please refer to Section III.6.6.C on P. 74 of the APR for further comment. I.5.2.F Communication: Plan to Address Challenges Our plan to address this concern involves two components: one virtual and one real. We are aiming to develop our community presence in the virtual world through enhancing our website functionality to create a community kiosk as well as through the use of Facebook and Linked-in. We do believe we are missing a point person on communications and therefore seek to create a Director of Communications position when funds are available. Please refer to section III.66.B on P.73. I.5.2.G Graduate Studies and Research: Plan to Address Challenges Please refer to Section III.66.B.ii on Page 73 of the APR for our plan. 20009 APR – University of Kansas – Addenda Page 2 of 7 III.6. HUMAN RESOURCES Request: More Information on Student Retention and Time-to-Graduation Rates III.6.1.d Student Body: Retention and Time-to-Graduation Rates To better understand the rate of retention in our 5-year Master of Architecture program, we have developed the following chart: Graduation Rates Professional Master of Architecture 5-year Degree Fall 2006 through Fall 2009 5-year Yield Transfer Yield Fall 2006 Applicants 438 48 Adm/Attended 110 25% 613% Expected Grads 87 79% 6100% Fall 2007 Applicants 486 45 Adm/Attended 65 13% 920% Expected Grads 56 86% 9100% Fall 2008 Applicants 458 14 Adm/Attended 66 14% 429% Expected Grads 60 91% 375% Fall 2009 Applicants 409 13 Adm/Attended 69 17% 754% Expected Grads 66 96% 7100% We also previously reported time-to-graduation in narrative form in Section III.6.1.C. Enrollments in the APR (p.63) where we state that time-to-graduation hovers between 10.4 and 10.9 semesters. Specific data on Time-to-Degree (graduation) for each major at the university are compiled by the Office of Research and Institutional Planning (OIRP). For the 5-year M.Arch., the following mean and median years to degree are listed by year of graduation. Academic Year Mean Years to Degree Median Years to Degree 2004-05 5.5 5.0 2005-06 5.5 5.0 2006-07 5.6 5.3 2007-08 6.3 5.5 2008-09 5.3 5.0 ____________________________________________________________________ Source: OIRP DEMIS databases. Academic Information Management System, Student and Faculty Measures, School of Architecture and Urban Planning, page 12. December 15, 2009. 20009 APR – University of Kansas – Addenda Page 3 of 7 Please note that statistical data representing the M.Arch.

Load more