2009 NAAB APR + Addenda

2009ꢀArchitectureꢀProgramꢀReportꢀ <ul style="display: flex;"><li style="flex:1">Chancellor:ꢀ </li><li style="flex:1">BernadetteꢀGrayꢁLittle,ꢀPhDꢀ </li></ul>230ꢀStrongꢀHallꢀ Lawrence,ꢀKSꢀ66045ꢀ ꢀ<ul style="display: flex;"><li style="flex:1">InterimꢀProvostꢀ&ꢀExecutiveꢀViceꢀChancellor:ꢀ </li><li style="flex:1">DannyꢀAnderson,ꢀPhDꢀ </li></ul>ꢀ<ul style="display: flex;"><li style="flex:1">Dean:ꢀ </li><li style="flex:1">JohnꢀGaunt,ꢀFAIAꢀ </li></ul>ꢀ<ul style="display: flex;"><li style="flex:1">ArchitectureꢀDept.ꢀChair:ꢀꢀ </li><li style="flex:1">KeithꢀDiazꢀMoore,ꢀPhD,ꢀAIAꢀ </li></ul>1465ꢀJayhawkꢀBlvd.,ꢀMarvinꢀ205ꢀ Lawrence,ꢀKSꢀ66045ꢁ7614ꢀ (T)ꢀ785.864.5088ꢀ (F)ꢀ785.864.5185ꢀ (E)ꢀ<a href="mailto:[email protected]" target="_blank">[email protected] </a>ꢀ<ul style="display: flex;"><li style="flex:1">NAABꢀAccreditedꢀDegree:ꢀ </li><li style="flex:1">MasterꢀofꢀArchitectureꢀ </li></ul>ꢀꢀꢀTrackꢀI:ꢀ5+ꢀYearꢀ TrackꢀIII:ꢀBachelorsꢀ+ꢀ3+ꢀYearꢀ 5.4.7 ꢀ Art ꢀ Center, ꢀ LEED ꢁ Platinum ꢀ Design ꢁ Build ꢀ Project ꢀ by ꢀ Studio ꢀ 804 Table of Contents <ul style="display: flex;"><li style="flex:1">Part I: Introduction to the Program </li><li style="flex:1">1</li></ul><ul style="display: flex;"><li style="flex:1">1</li><li style="flex:1">Section I.1 – History and Description of the Institution </li></ul><ul style="display: flex;"><li style="flex:1">Section I.2 – Institutional Mission </li><li style="flex:1">2</li></ul>Section I.3 – Program History Section I.4 – Program Mission 45<ul style="display: flex;"><li style="flex:1">Section I.5 – Program Self-Assessment </li><li style="flex:1">10 </li></ul>Part II: Progress Since the Last Visit Section II.1 – Summary of Responses to the Team Findings Section II.2 – Summary of Responses to Changes in the NAAB Conditions 17 17 32 Part III: Compliance with the Conditions for Accreditation Section III.1 – Program Response to the NAAB Perspectives Section III.2 – Program Self-Assessment Procedures Section III.3 – Public Information 34 34 49 54 Section III.4 – Social Equity Section III.5 – Studio Culture 55 58 Section III.6 – Human Resources Section III.7 – Human Resource Development 59 75 <ul style="display: flex;"><li style="flex:1">Section III.8 – Physical Resources </li><li style="flex:1">90 </li></ul>Section III.9 – Informational Resources Section III.10 – Financial Resources Section III.11 – Administrative Structure Section III.12 – Professional Degrees and Curriculum Section III.13 – Student Performance Criteria 96 113 118 121 134 Part IV: Supplemental Information Section IV.1 – Student Progress Evaluation Procedures Section IV.2 – Studio Culture Policy 136 136 139 147 218 246 282 304 323 Section IV.3 – Course Descriptions Section IV.4 – Faculty Resumes Section IV.5 – Visiting Team Report from Previous Visit Section IV.6 – Annual Reports Section IV.7 – Catalogs Section IV.8 – NAAB Responses to Annual Reports Appendices <ul style="display: flex;"><li style="flex:1">Appendix A: Mission (“Our Story”) </li><li style="flex:1">329 </li></ul><ul style="display: flex;"><li style="flex:1">334 </li><li style="flex:1">Appendix B: Learning/Teaching Assessments </li></ul>Appendix C: Alumni Survey, Exit Interview Guide, Student Survey &Assessment of General Education Appendix D: Floor Plans 346 357 367 367 374 381 384 Appendix E: Supporting Material Appendix E.1: Information on Accessing NAAB Conditions for Accreditation Appendix E.2: Criteria for Promotion & Tenure Appendix E.3: Faculty Scholarship Symposia Appendix E.4: Institutional Accreditation ADDENDAꢀ 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 <ul style="display: flex;"><li style="flex:1">20009 APR – University of Kansas – Addenda </li><li style="flex:1">Page 1 of 7 </li></ul>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. <ul style="display: flex;"><li style="flex:1">20009 APR – University of Kansas – Addenda </li><li style="flex:1">Page 2 of 7 </li></ul>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 <ul style="display: flex;"><li style="flex:1">5-year </li><li style="flex:1">Yield Transfer </li><li style="flex:1">Yield </li></ul>Fall 2006 Applicants Adm/Attended Expected Grads 438 110 25% 87 79% 48 66 13% 100% <ul style="display: flex;"><li style="flex:1">Fall 2007 Applicants </li><li style="flex:1">486 </li></ul>65 13% 56 86% 45 99 Adm/Attended Expected Grads 20% 100% <ul style="display: flex;"><li style="flex:1">Fall 2008 Applicants </li><li style="flex:1">458 </li></ul>66 14% 60 91% 14 43 Adm/Attended Expected Grads 29% 75% <ul style="display: flex;"><li style="flex:1">Fall 2009 Applicants </li><li style="flex:1">409 </li></ul>69 17% 66 96% 13 77 Adm/Attended Expected Grads 54% 100% 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 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 <ul style="display: flex;"><li style="flex:1">Mean Years to Degree </li><li style="flex:1">Median Years to Degree </li></ul>5.5 5.5 5.6 6.3 5.3 5.0 5.0 5.3 5.5 <ul style="display: flex;"><li style="flex:1">5.0 </li><li style="flex:1">2008-09 </li></ul>____________________________________________________________________ Source: OIRP DEMIS databases. Academic Information Management System, Student and Faculty Measures, School of Architecture and Urban Planning, page 12. December 15, 2009. <ul style="display: flex;"><li style="flex:1">20009 APR – University of Kansas – Addenda </li><li style="flex:1">Page 3 of 7 </li></ul>Please note that statistical data representing the M.Arch. III are aggregated with data for other graduate degrees in the School (M.A., Ph.D.) and Time-to-Degree measures, which are presented in some years as less than 3 years, are not useful. III.8. PHYSICAL RESOURCES Request: More Information on Proposed Changes and Problems and Recommendations for Improvement Please refer to Section I.5.2.A above as well as in the APR. The cluster of three buildings (Marvin Hall, Snow Hall and Marvin Studios) that houses almost all of the program’s activities has three deficiencies that deserve mention: 1) a shortage of open common areas for display and critiques of student work; 2) the lack of sufficiently large, centralized and dedicated classroom space for the required technical and support classes in the professional degree; and, 3) a shortage of dedicated workspaces for design-build studios and for the fabrication and assembly of large projects. The shortage of sufficient open display and critique space varies from building to building. In Marvin Hall, pin-up spaces outside studios are used intensively and, with careful planning, they are capable of accommodating the activities of the studios that share them. The most apparent insufficiency in Marvin is the availability of only one, moderately-sized jury space. There is great demand for the use of this space, particularly at the end of the semester. In Snow Hall, which serves 5 or more studios each semester, there is only one jury area and no display or pin-up spaces outside of the studios themselves. At the end of the semester, some of the Snow Hall studios must conduct their reviews in Marvin Hall. The same situation exists to a certain extent in Marvin Studios where the entryway and hallways are used for pin-ups and display and critiques are conducted just outside the two studios that open onto the building’s entryway. Common classrooms are also in short supply in these three buildings and are used for multiple activities including regularly scheduled classes, studio critiques, organizational and committee meetings and other events. Although Snow Hall and Marvin Studios have special-purpose computer labs, they have no classrooms or conference rooms reserved for architecture classes or functions. Marvin Hall contains two classrooms—one with a capacity of 30 and the other with a capacity of 35 students. These are adequate for smaller elective classes that must be scheduled with great care and knowledge of potential conflicts, but neither of these rooms is adequate for the required support classes that are part of the curriculum in the professional degree. All of these classes must be scheduled through the university-wide system in other buildings on campus, occasionally at the other end of campus if nearby buildings have no available rooms. Many studios engage in design-build projects that require accessible and safe open, welllighted areas for assembly and fabrication and this leads to a third deficiency—a shortage of such spaces in convenient locations. Our shops have sufficient space for the many <ul style="display: flex;"><li style="flex:1">20009 APR – University of Kansas – Addenda </li><li style="flex:1">Page 4 of 7 </li></ul>tools that are provided, but they have no adjacent assembly areas. A covered building yard that is located outside Marvin Hall’s southern wall is used primarily for storage of materials and, in some cases, studios have constructed large projects such as singlefamily shelters on the sidewalk and open grassy area behind Marvin Hall—a location they share with a steady flow of pedestrians each day. These space deficiencies have been solved in part and temporarily through the use of a 2,500-square foot open shop space on the University’s West Campus, about 5 minutes from the School. Some of the undergraduate design-build studios have carried out the construction part of their work in that space. The recent purchase of a large industrial warehouse building on the eastern edge of Lawrence, about a 10-minute drive from the school, will also give the school more than enough space for carrying out large built studio projects. Both of these solutions are needed and will do much to handle the demand for fabrication space. The problem of insufficient classroom, display and critique space is being addressed through a long-term effort to raise funds for a lecture hall and expanded display/critique space that would be part of a southern addition to Marvin Hall. This is a goal that must be accomplished if the School remains centered in Marvin Hall. Beyond this interim solution, we are convinced that the program will demand a more sustainable and flexible learning environment within the next couple of decades. While we dislike the idea of moving from central campus, we must admit to ourselves that Marvin Hall was initially designed to serve as a traditional academic building and that its infrastructure is best suited to that. With the rapid changes in architecture, the educational responsiveness we can provide to shape the next generation of leaders is increasingly hampered by the physical limitations that we have. It is for these reasons that we believe the long-term solution is the development of a new architecture building by 2030 (see above). III.10. FINANCIAL RESOURCES Request: More Information on Budget Comparison with Other Professional Units on Campus and Data on Annual Expenditures and Total Capital Investment per Student III.10.2.B. Expenditures per Student Please refer to the attached chart which summarizes General Revenue expenditures per professional school since 2005. <ul style="display: flex;"><li style="flex:1">20009 APR – University of Kansas – Addenda </li><li style="flex:1">Page 5 of 7 </li></ul>Since most expenditures in undergraduate professional programs are at the upper division level, the “UD” number in the GU Cost per SCH by level is important for comparative purposes. In this column, the School of Architecture is the third least expensive professional school following only Education and Business, and receiving only approximately 53% of the funds per student credit hour as received by Fine Arts and Engineering, our two closest professions. When aligned with the figures presented in Section III.10.2 in the APR (p.115), it is clear that both the low level of our faculty salaries and the administrative understaffing discussed in Section III.6.6.B in the APR (p.72-3) play a role in this disparity. To illustrate the lack of administrative support, our closest comparables in terms of size of professional school are the Schools of Journalism, Law, and Social Welfare (all slightly smaller than architecture in terms of faculty, students and SCH). The following chart illustrates their administrative support: Unit Administrative Support 18 16 16 14 12 10 10 8<ul style="display: flex;"><li style="flex:1">7</li><li style="flex:1">7</li></ul>6420 4<ul style="display: flex;"><li style="flex:1">3</li><li style="flex:1">3</li></ul>2<ul style="display: flex;"><li style="flex:1">Architecture </li><li style="flex:1">Journalism </li><li style="flex:1">Law </li><li style="flex:1">Social Welfare </li></ul>Schools Adminstrators Admin Staff Quite simply, we believe the numbers illustrate a highly efficient, resource-deprived unit. <ul style="display: flex;"><li style="flex:1">20009 APR – University of Kansas – Addenda </li><li style="flex:1">Page 7 of 7 </li></ul>I.ꢀ ꢀINTRODUCTIONꢀTOꢀTHEꢀPROGRAMꢀ I.1. HISTORY AND DESCRIPTION OF THE INSTITUTION The School of Architecture, Design and Planning (SADP) at the University of Kansas is located in Lawrence, Kansas, which lies between the metropolitan centers of Kansas City, Missouri, 30 miles to the east and the state capital of Topeka, 20 miles to the west. Lawrence is ranked among the fastest growing cities in its population bracket in the United States and enjoys a healthy economy. The School of Architecture, Design and Planning is one of 12 professional schools which, along with the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, form the University of Kansas on the Lawrence and Kansas City campuses. The University is consistently referred to by various public educational agencies and private institutions as an excellent state university. The University of Kansas is one of six state institutions of higher education governed by the State Board of Regents. The University of Kansas is the only Kansas Regents’ university to hold membership in the prestigious Association of American Universities (AAU), a select group of 62 public and private research universities that represents excellence in graduate and professional education and the highest achievements in research internationally. The chief executive officer of the University is the Chancellor who gives responsibility for the Lawrence campus to a Provost, who in turn divides these responsibilities among six Vice Provosts (see <a href="/goto?url=http://www.provost.ku.edu/administration/pdf/lawrencecampus.pdf" target="_blank">http://www.provost.ku.edu/administration/pdf/lawrencecampus.pdf</a>). The responsibility for each of the several schools is carried by a Dean who reports to the Provost. The University employs approximately 1,200 full-time faculty, 388 part-time faculty, and 8,293 classified personnel on the Lawrence campus. The operating budget for Fiscal Year 2008 was approximately $958 million of which $672 million was devoted to the Lawrence campus. The approximate value of the Kansas University Endowment in FY 2008 was $1.22 billion. The operating budget for the School of Architecture and Urban Planning during that same year was $5.1 million ($4.2 million for Architecture) which does not include additional endowment funds that bring the total annual resources of the School to over $5.4 million. During the past ten years the University of Kansas has stabilized enrollment growth in all areas of the University, including SADP. While the university has grown at the graduate and undergraduate level, growth in SADP is primarily in architecture at the graduate level. The University completed a major program review of all degree programs in January 2000. The Bachelor and Master of Architecture programs were viewed as essential to the mission of the University and rated as “Excellent.”

2009 NAAB APR + Addenda

Details

Download

Copyright

We respect the copyrights and intellectual property rights of all users. All uploaded documents are either original works of the uploader or authorized works of the rightful owners.

Support