The following feedback has been provided.
| Page: | 1 |2 |3 |4 | | |
| Name: | Chris Knowles |
|---|---|
| EMail: | chris.knowles@oregonstate.edu |
| Which model do you like best? | Model 3 Prime |
| Why do you like that model best? | |
| The Model 3 prime seems to fit best with the mission and vision of the College of Forestry. In my opinion, this model also does the best job of integrating faculty and creating disciplinary synergies. The major problem I see with Model 2 is the unequal department sizes. This creates the potential for unequal representation - for example on college level committees and also creates management challenges. I see some advantages to the 2 unit model, such as linking me with faculty in other departments that I currently do not work with. This would create the potential for some exciting collaborative research. However, I think there are several shortcomings and challenges to this model. Firstly, I see a major challenge in finding the right leader for the wood science and forest engineering group. These two departments are mission driven and the current missions do not have much overlap. The leader of this department would have a significant challenge in finding ways to integrate the divergent missions of these two groups. Also, these two programs have prestigious status on a national and international level, making the College of Forestry the highly recognized College it is. Combining these two departments would lower their visibility and potentially cause damage to the external perception of the college in a wide variety of stakeholder groups. We should carefully consider the me! ssage a 2 unit model would send to all stakeholder groups and make sure that message is consistent with the long term strategy of the College of Forestry. |
|
| What unit names (i.e., school or department) would you suggest for your preferred model? | |
| Where do you think you would best fit within one of the yet to be named departments? | |
| I feel I best fit into the Wood Science and Engineering department in that model. | |
| Name: | John Simonsen |
| EMail: | john.simonsen@oregonstate.edu |
| Which model do you like best? | Model 3 Prime |
| Why do you like that model best? | |
| It is a more natural division of interests. The 2 unit model would be something of a disaster, I think. And I predict that within 10 years the 2 unit model would morph into 2 schools, each with 2 departments. The only long term change would be an additional layer of administration and fewer researchers overall. | |
| What unit names (i.e., school or department) would you suggest for your preferred model? | |
| Where do you think you would best fit within one of the yet to be named departments? | |
| With all the other wood science folks. | |
| Name: | |
| EMail: | |
| Which model do you like best? | Model 2 Prime |
| Why do you like that model best? | |
| It keeps the Forest Resources Department as 1 unit. | |
| What unit names (i.e., school or department) would you suggest for your preferred model? | |
Forest Management and Ecosystem Sciences |
|
| Where do you think you would best fit within one of the yet to be named departments? | |
| Model 2 Prime | |
| Name: | |
| EMail: | |
| Which model do you like best? | 2 Unit Model |
| Why do you like that model best? | |
| A modified version with a large "school of integrated forestry" and a small "institute of wood science and engineering" (combine current FE, FR, and FS) That, or a NO department model where we are all one College of Integrated Forestry |
|
| What unit names (i.e., school or department) would you suggest for your preferred model? | |
"school of integrated forestry" "institute of wood science and engineering" |
|
| Where do you think you would best fit within one of the yet to be named departments? | |
| as an ecologist in the large integrated department | |
| Page: | 1 |2 |3 |4 | | |