The University of Memphis Board of Trustees November 2020
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
University of Missouri-Kansas City Promotion & Continuous Academic Appointment Calendar 2002-2003
UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI-KANSAS CITY PROMOTION & CONTINUOUS ACADEMIC APPOINTMENT CALENDAR 2002-2003 April 22, 2002 Deans are notified by the Provost’s Office of faculty members who require mandatory review during the 2002-2003 academic year. Cover letter and attached materials must be made available to all candidates by April 29, 2002. May 25, 2002 Initial list of potential external evaluators due back to Unit Coordinator. The dossiers for the external reviewers are prepared. They should include: Part I, C.V.’s, publications, and other materials/media which have been prepared for submission. These are due back to Unit Coordinator. June 12, 2002 (prior to this date) Deans forward names of potential external evaluators to the Vice-Provost for Academic Affairs for approval. Chairs and Unit Coordinators need to know that for purposes of academic and scholarly integrity: • These reviewers should not be former professors, students, advisors, or classmates of the individuals who are being reviewed. • Approval of the Vice-Provost is needed if a reviewer is from an institution from where the individual undergoing review: a) received a degree, b) served on the faculty, or c) has a close personal association. August 29, 2002 Part I and Part II of the document Recommendation for Tenure and/or Promotion Beyond Assistant Professor, through the Unit Coordinator, are sent to the unit Committee for review. All supporting materials should be available at this time. September 28, 2002 The Unit Committee will send letters to candidates advising them of its recommendation. In the event of a negative recommendation, the candidate may submit a written appeal or rebuttal within ten calendar days for consideration. -
SUSTAINABLE FOOD SYSTEMS at URBAN PUBLIC UNIVERSITIES: a SURVEY of U-21 UNIVERSITIES KAMESHWARI POTHUKUCHI Wayne State University SAMUEL A
SUSTAINABLE FOOD SYSTEMS AT URBAN PUBLIC UNIVERSITIES: A SURVEY OF U-21 UNIVERSITIES KAMESHWARI POTHUKUCHI Wayne State University SAMUEL A. MOLNAR University of Michigan ABSTRACT: Urban communities are challenged by the conventional food system in diverse ways. To mitigate these challenges, a growing sustainable food system (SFS) movement mobilizes existing resources—including public institutions—to resolve disparities in access to healthy food, increase eco- nomic opportunities, conserve natural resources, and build a stronger, more local food system. Many public universities located in inner cities have adopted missions committing themselves to the im- provement of their cities and regions. They also perform anchoring roles to revitalize their immediate neighborhoods, and, in a contemporary extension of their civic purposes, embrace sustainability as an institutional goal. Urban public universities therefore can play many SFS leadership roles, including through links to innovative scholarship, campus dining halls, other food retail such as farmers markets, and civic engagement activities such as community gardens. Through a study of 21 urban public univer- sities, this paper investigates the presence and characteristics of SFS leadership, underlying rationales, and factors that support and oppose leadership. The conventional food system presents urban communities with a double-edged sword. It con- tributes to the local economy in jobs and sales and makes affordable foods abundant. Nonetheless, it also creates disparities in access to affordably priced healthy and fresh foods in impoverished neighborhoods and those of color, leading to obesity and diet-related illnesses at rates higher than national averages. Jobs in urban food retail tend to hover around the minimum wage with few benefits or upward mobility. -
Using Cluster Analysis for Peer Selection
Using Cluster Analysis in Peer Selection for a Metropolitan Research University Robert L. Armacost Alicia L. Wilson Julia J. Pet-Armacost University of Central Florida Southern Association for Institutional Research Baton Rouge, LA October 15, 2002 Overview z Motivation for identifying peers z UCF Mission and Vision z What is a Metropolitan Research University? z Overview of cluster analysis z Approach – Institutions to be considered – Selection Variables – Methods z Results 2 Using Cluster Analysis in Peer Selection October 15, 2002 The University of Central Florida z Established in 1963 in Orlando, Florida: Metropolitan Research University z Grown from 2,600 to 39,000 students in 39 years – 32,500 undergraduates and 6,500 graduates z Doctoral intensive – 76 Bachelors, 57 Masters, 3 Specialist, and 19 PhD programs z Second largest undergraduate enrollment in state z Approximately 900+ faculty and 3500 staff z Six colleges and two schools – Arts and Sciences, Business Administration, Education, Engineering and Computer Science, Health and Public Affairs, Honors, Optics, and Hospitality Management 3 Using Cluster Analysis in Peer Selection October 15, 2002 Why Did We Look at this Issue? z Strategic planning discussions (SPC and focus groups) – Revised UCF Mission – Clearly established UCF VISION z Led to the basic questions: What is a Metropolitan Research University? How will we know when UCF is the Leading Metropolitan Research University? 4 Using Cluster Analysis in Peer Selection October 15, 2002 UCF Mission z The University of Central Florida is a public multi-campus metropolitan research university, dedicated to serving its surrounding communities with their diverse and expanding populations, technological corridors, and international partners. -
CSU Past and Present Peer Institutions
Cleveland State University Peer Institutions, Past and Present Office of Institutional Research & Analysis August 2009 This page was intentionally left blank. rev. 20AUG2009 2 Table of Contents Peers Based on Cleveland State University’s Carnegie Classification............................ 4 Search Criteria 1 - Level: 4-year or above, Control: Public, Enrollment Profile: MU (Majority undergraduate), Size and Setting: L4/NR (Large four-year, primarily non-residential) .......................................................................................... 4 Search Criteria 2 - Level: 4-year or above, Control: Public, Undergraduate Instructional Program: Bal/HGC (Balanced arts & sciences/professions, high graduate coexistence), Size and Setting: L4/NR (Large four-year, primarily non-residential) ........................................................................................................ 5 Search Criteria 3 - Level: 4-year or above, Undergraduate Instructional Program: Bal/HGC (Balanced arts & sciences/professions, high graduate coexistence), Enrollment Profile: MU (Mostly undergraduate), Size and Setting: L4/NR (Large four-year, primarily non-residential), Basic Classification: RU/H (High research)........................................................................ 6 CSU-AAUP Peers for Bargaining Unit and Faculty Salary Comparisons......................... 7 Ohio Four-Year Public Colleges and Universities.............................................................. 7 Urban 21 Universities...........................................................................................................