Date: February 27, 2007 5:20:39 PM EST
Subject: Proposed BS in Quantitative Biology
Dear Dr. Fox:
The Coordinating Committee seems to have interpreted that "Chemistry clearly does not support"
our proposal for the BS in Quantitative Biology, according to a message from Amy Johnson, chair
of the Undergraduate Studies Committee. This is definitely not the case, and the message from
John Burmeister (attached, in response to a request for a meeting) clearly shows this.
Let me explain the interactions we had with the Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry.
1. The design team for the new program included Hal White, professor of chemistry and
biochemistry, and we also had other chemistry faculty involved in discussions as to which
chemistry courses were most appropriate for the new major. The consensus was that we
should offer a few choices of different tracks, which is what we wrote into the proposal
(see Options A, B and C in the Chemistry Section).
2. John Burmeister, not knowing about the reasoning behind the chemistry options, raised
some issues with students in other majors. We considered John's advice and didn't see any
reason for changing the options we had (in particular Option C), given the type of program
and students we expect to become BSQB majors, and the close monitoring of their progress
that we plan via advising. John pointed out some space limitations and possible difficulties
with enrollment in CHEM 321/322, but he understood (see his statement in the attached
message) that the impact on CHEM 321/322 will not be significant, and that there are ways
of resolving the possible few cases that may arise.
I want to reiterate the tremendous commitment to this program from faculty in several
departments, namely Biological Sciences, Chemistry and Biochemistry, Chemical Engineering,
and Mathematical Sciences. We believe the new major creates a unique opportunity for
collaboration among faculty in those departments that will benefit many students, not just
those who may become BSQB majors.
I will send you a revised proposal (with fixes for all typos). For now, please let me know
whether this message and the attached, from the Associate Chair of Chemistry and Biochemistry,
are sufficient to settle the issues raised by the Coordinating Committee.
Sincerely,
Gilberto
__________________
G. Schleiniger
Director of Undergraduate Studies
Math Sciences
University of Delaware
Begin forwarded message:
Date: February 22, 2007 10:15:22 AM EST
Subject: Re: Letter of Support for Proposed Quantitative Biology Major
Hal, et al.:
This is a classic case of a mountain having been made out of two molehills. My "provisos" were NOT intended to be an expression of opposition or lack of support for the proposed major. They were simply expressions of two circumstances, reflecting "facts of life", that I felt needed to be brought up and addressed. As far as I'm concerned, they have been satisfactorily addressed, thusly:
1. If, knowing the rather sorry track record of the students in the last non-major group (ENEG) who had been required to take our CHEM-111/112/119/120 sequence, the sponsors still feel that the students in the new major can handle it, I am more than willing to give them a shot at it. Indeed, we have NEVER turned away non-majors who, knowing the high level of the course, still want to take it. In this sequence, space/facilities issues would not be a problem.
2. The opposite situation pertains in CHEM-321/322, where, with 390 students enrolled, we reached saturation last fall, having to resort to holding labs Friday night and Saturday morning, in addition to every other available period during the normal work week (20 sections in all, in the one available laboratory room). However, as you and others have subsequently pointed out, the primary population in the proposed major will probably be drawn from BISC majors who would normally take CHEM-321/322 in any event. This would not exascerbate the existing situation. If the overflow point is reached, the disenfranchised students could take CHEM-321/322 during the summer sessions (it has been offered during the summer for quite some time.)
Thus, I return to my original, opening response: "We would welcome the new BS/Quantitative Biology majors in the CHEM courses specified in the proposed curriculum." I don't believe that any meeting is necessary.
JB