Architecture Program Report for 2013 NAAB Visit for ...September 2012 iii Program Administrator: Prescott Muir, FAIA, Chair University of Utah 375 S 1530 E., Room 235 ARCH Salt Lake

University of Utah College of Architecture + Planning School of Architecture Architecture Program Report for 2013 NAAB Visit for Continuing Accreditation Degree Title [prerequisite + total number of credits] Master of Architecture 4+2 (122 undergraduate credit hours plus 53 graduate credit hours) Master of Architecture 3+ (Undergraduate degree + 100 graduate credit hours) Year of the Previous Visit: 2007 Current Term of Accreditation: The professional architecture program: Master of Architecture was formally granted a six-year term of accreditation. The accreditation term is effective January 1, 2007. The program is scheduled for its next accreditation visit in 2013. Submitted to: The National Architectural Accrediting Board Date: September 5, 2012

University of Utah Architecture Program Report

September 2012

iii

Program Administrator: Prescott Muir, FAIA, Chair University of Utah 375 S 1530 E., Room 235 ARCH Salt Lake City, UT 84112 801.581.7414 Chief Administrator: Brenda Scheer, AIA, FAICP, Dean University of Utah 375 S 1530 E., Room 235 ARCH Salt Lake City, UT 84112 801.581.8254 Chief Academic Officer of the Institution: Michael Hardman, Interim Senior Vice President for Academic Affairs University of Utah 205 Park Bldg. Salt Lake City, UT 84112 801.581.5057 President of the Institution: David W. Pershing, Ph.D., President University of Utah 201 Presidents Circle, Room 203 Salt Lake City, Utah 84112 801.581.5701 Individual submitting the Architecture Program Report: Prescott Muir, FAIA, Chair University of Utah 375 S 1530 E., Room 235 ARCH Salt Lake City, UT 84112 801.581.7414 Name of individual to whom questions should be directed: Prescott Muir, FAIA, Chair University of Utah 375 S 1530 E., Room 235 ARCH Salt Lake City, UT 84112 801.581.7414


September 2012

iv

Table of Contents Section Page Part One. Institutional Support and Commitment to Continuous Improvement 1. Identify & Self Assessment

1. History Mission 2. Learning Culture and Social Equity 3. Responses to the Five Perspectives 4. Long Range Planning 5. Program Self Assessment

2. Resources

1. Human Resources and Human Resource Development 2. Administrative Structure and Governance 3. Financial Resources 4. Physical Resources 5. Information Resources

3. Institutional Characteristics 1. Statistical Reports 2. Annual Reports 3. Faculty Credentials

4. Policy Review Part Two. Educational Outcomes and Curriculum 1. Student Performance Criteria 2. Curricular Framework

1. Regional Accreditation 2. Professional Degrees and Curriculum 3. Curriculum Review and Development

3. Evaluation of Preparatory/Pre-professional Education 4. Public Information

1. Statement on NAAB-Accredited Degrees 2. Access to NAAB Conditions and Procedures 3. Access to Career Development Information 4. Public Access to APRs and VTRs 5. ARE Pass Rates

Part Three. Progress Since Last Site Visit 1. Summary of Responses to the Team Findings a. Responses to Conditions Not Met b. Responses to Causes of Concern


September 2012

v

2. Summary of Responses to Changes in the NAAB Conditions Part Four. Supplemental Information 1. Course Descriptions 2. Faculty Resumes 3. Visiting Team Report 2007 (VTR) 4. Catalog (or URL)


September 2012

vi

This page is left blank intentionally.


September 2012

1

Part One (I). Institutional Support and Commitment to Continuous Improvement I.1. Identity & Self Assessment

I.1.1. History and Mission

The School of Architecture of the University of Utah is the leading regional center for promoting the value of architecture through education. Our vision is to effect a transformation in attitude toward architecture. The School of Architecture (SoA) brings together a community of students, faculty, and staff with a broad range of interests and expertise in creative design, building, urban planning, computer technology, issues of social and ecological responsibility, and the scholarly study of the practice architecture and theory of the built environment. In this wide range of interests is a common concern for constructing and maintaining the highest quality in our built and natural environments, doing no harm and leaving a lasting positive legacy of human habitation. To this end, the school offers degrees with academically and professionally oriented programs in several related fields of emphasis with a primary focus on a professionally accredited Master in Architecture Degree. The mission of the University of Utah is to serve the people of Utah and the world through the discovery, creation and application of knowledge; through the dissemination of knowledge by teaching, publication, artistic presentation and technology transfer; and through community engagement. As a preeminent research and teaching university with national and global reach, the university cultivates an academic environment in which the highest standards of intellectual integrity and scholarship are practiced. Students at the university learn from and collaborate with faculty who are at the forefront of their disciplines. The university faculty and staff are committed to helping students excel. We zealously preserve academic freedom, promote diversity and equal opportunity and respect individual beliefs. We advance rigorous interdisciplinary inquiry, international involvement and social responsibility. The SoA is a department within the College of Architecture + Planning (CA+P). CA+P supports the mission and vision of the University of Utah and serves the state and nation by advancing the discipline and professions of architecture, design, urban design and planning through excellence in education, scholarly and creative endeavors, and professional and community service.

• We educate dedicated and competent architects, planners, designers, urban designers, and preservation professionals, and provide general design education to university students.

• We advance knowledge through innovative research, scholarship, and creative work. • We promote community outreach, internship and service as an important component of our educational responsibility. • We foster public sensitivity to architecture, design, planning and related urban and environmental issues.

The vision of the CA+P is of an architecture, design, urban design, and planning program distinguished by excellent teaching; research, scholarship, and creative work; community-based service and outreach; interdisciplinary collaboration; and advancing of digital technologies throughout the curriculum. A Department of Architecture was organized in 1949 within the College of Fine Arts at the University of Utah, and was authorized to grant the Bachelor of Architecture degree. The program received initial accreditation in 1954 from the National Architect Accreditation Board (NAAB), and has been accredited continuously since. Roger Bailey, FAIA, developed the program and served as head of the department from 1949-63. Bailey brought a variety of young faculty members to Utah, including Charles Moore, Gordon Heck, and James Akland. In an illustrative essay, "A New School" in the November 1979 issue of


September 2012

2

the Journal of Architectural Education, Bailey describes the formation and early years of the program, then located in the housing barracks on campus that remained from the Second World War. In 1963, Robert L. Bliss, FAIA, was appointed head of the department. In 1967, along with many other schools of architecture nationally, the department chose to offer the Master of Architecture as the professional degree. This was initially a three year degree program. The Bachelor of Architecture professional degree was discontinued in 1972. In 1974 the department separated from the College of Fine Arts and became the Graduate School of Architecture (GSA), which was technically a College with the dean reporting directly to the Senior Vice President for Academic Affairs. Dean Bliss continued to lead the school until 1986. In 1970 the School moved into its new building, an award-winning example of "brutalist" architecture, designed by the local firm of Edwards and Daniels Architects. (The building received a 25-year AIA recognition from the Utah Chapter.) The building was designed to accommodate the sixty students that comprised the school at that time, plus a possible expansion. This facility continues as the only source of housing for the present CA+P. In the early 1970s the School installed its first data processing unit, under the directorship of emeritus professor Edward “Ted” Smith, FAIA, making the School among the first schools in the country to begin experimenting with computer applications in architecture. In 1986, Carl Inoway, AIA, was appointed dean and served until 1992. In 1990, Dean Inoway initiated a pre-professional degree program and created a 4+2 professional degree program to be offered in addition to the existing 3+ professional degree program for those with non-architecture undergraduate degrees. The School now offers a Bachelor of Science in Architectural Studies (BSAS) as the pre-professional degree, two variations on the Master of Architecture (M. Arch) as accredited professional degrees, and a post-professional Master of Science in Architectural Studies (MSAS). William C. Miller, FAIA, was named dean in 1992. Due in part to the success of the undergraduate program, the SoA experienced an increase in student numbers in both its undergraduate and graduate programs. Relationships with and support from the practicing professional community was greatly increased during this period, culminating during the 1999-2000 academic year with the GSA’s celebration of its 50th anniversary. In 2002, the University selected Brenda Case Scheer, AIA, FAICP as its first woman Dean of Architecture. Dean Scheer, in her first two years, achieved the long sought goal of bringing the undergraduate program of planning into the same academic unit as architecture. After building up the planning program with faculty, enrollment and curriculum, the GSA became the College of Architecture + Planning (CA+P) in 2003. Architecture and City and Metropolitan Planning (CMP) became separate departments in the college in 2007, and the department of architecture was renamed as the School of Architecture (SoA). Associate Professor Patrick Tripeny was the first chair (2007-10) followed by Professor Prescott Muir, FAIA (2010-present). The School recruited Muir because of his prestige as designer, his contributions as an adjunct, and his leadership capabilities in the community. The SoA at the University of Utah is one of the smallest state-supported programs in the country, with an average of 173 (FTE) students. Table 1 shows comparative analysis of degree programs and enrollment.


September 2012

3

Table 1 Comparison of School Size UGr B.Arch MARCH 3+ MASTER MS ARCH TOTAL University of Utah 87 77 9 173 Arizona State 362 x 18 40 420 Cal Poly SLO 742 x 104 0 16 862 Cincinnati 303 x 46 54 403 Princeton 30 36 14 80 Rice 128 x 30 40 12 210 Syracuse 444 x 0 90 534 U of Colorado-Denver 69 113 182 University of Michigan 205 98 106 409 UCLA 50 135 185 University of Oregon 340 x 139 479 Source: Guide to Architecture Schools, 8th Edition, 2009. Perhaps because of our size, the experience of faculty, students and staff is one of an intimate and supportive family. Decision-making is collaborative, with an active student association (AIAS) with faculty sponsor, Associate Professor Ryan Smith. The student organization meets monthly during the academic year and has joint sponsored events within the Young Architects Forum of the AIA. The School has seen the recent retiring of three faculty members and one long-time faculty member has taken another position. Five exceptional faculty members have joined the school in the last two years. Four were a product of an international search and the fourth a fortuitous partner to the new hiring chair for Planning. They include two historians one with a Ph. D. from the ETH in Switzerland and doing a post-doctoral at Harvard, the other with a Ph.D. from Princeton, a woman of color from Pakistan. The recent design faculty hires are a Yale graduate previously a studio instructor at Virginia Tech and two very successful practitioners (clinical appointments) based in Phoenix and Portland. Those were exceptional hirings where we competed successfully against some of the best schools in the country. This fall the SoA anticipates a search and hirings in product design and design/build positions. The size of the SoA and quality of life associated with the region have been assets in faculty recruitment. The University of Utah is a Research One institution and is rated in the top 100 world- wide academic intuitions. In the fall of 2012, the University has a student population of 25,165 undergraduate students and 7,427 graduate students, offering 72 undergraduate and 90 graduate degrees. There are 1,403 tenured or tenure track faculty and approximately 1,000 auxiliary faculty in 13 academic colleges. The University is known for its successful programs in technology commercialization, digital imaging, and health care, and sustainability. The University has a Nobel laureate in residence, Mario Cappecchi. In 2011, in response to significant academic as well as athletic achievement, the University of Utah was invited to join the PAC-12 athletic conference. Although it experienced some budget cuts (in 2009 and 2010), the university was able to keep faculty and staff salaries stable, leading to a relatively positive trajectory compared to many other state institutions. In the past year, the new President, David Pershing, has worked with the faculty to establish seven core commitments that will drive future programs and investments. The SOA either already leads many of the efforts in these commitments or is poised to actively participate (see 1.1.3, part A). The School benefits from a stable institutional setting that is well managed, positioned for an extended period of upward trajectory, and supportive of its programs financially. The School of Architecture is a department in the College of Architecture + Planning. The former Graduate School of Architecture successfully shepherded, incubated and expanded the department of City and Metropolitan Planning until it was ready for independence in 2007. CMP now offers an undergraduate degree, a PAB-accredited Masters of City and Metropolitan Planning, and a Ph.D in Planning and Design. CMP has grown to include 11 regular faculty and 181 students, all of whom are now housed in the Architecture Building, thus almost doubling the number of faculty and students


September 2012

4

occupying the building since 2005. The SoA gains and contributes significantly in the cross listing of electives between the two departments, common studios, shared exchange programs and participation in the College sponsored Lecture Series. The SoA collaborates with planning in the People and Places Honors undergraduate course, a common urban design studio and community-based studios. The SoA also offers a graduate elective in Main Street Revitalization and Project Management that are typically populated by planning, architecture, and business students. CMP and SoA also jointly sponsor the Historic Preservation Certificate and the Urban Design Certificate. SoA contributes courses to the interdisciplinary Master of Real Estate Development, which is a joint degree between CA+P and the David Eccles School of Business. At the present time, the SoA is engaged in “incubating” another new program in the College, Interdisciplinary Design, which currently offers only an undergraduate minor, but will begin offering a major within the SoA by 2013. At some point this will become a separate department. It is currently headed by Jim Agutter, who is appointed in architecture but teaches design classes exclusively. The faculty have been very successful in creating a strong “culture of cooperation”, which is also a hallmark characteristic of the University of Utah. Much of this collegiality within the CA+P stems from the common interests of Dean Scheer who is both a planner and an architect; Nan Ellin, chair of CMP, who is a planner and urban designer, and Prescott Muir, who has considerable experience and interest in urban planning, having served on and chaired the Salt Lake Planning Commission for ten years.

I.1.2. Learning Culture and Social Equity

The School of Architecture is a close-knit community of students, faculty and staff. We share a very strongly held values for the School that emanates from our work and shared decision-making: • Learning, exploration and risk-taking can only occur in an atmosphere of mutual respect, diversity, and collegiality. We believe that the SoA must continue to provide this atmosphere by heightened awareness of its existence and nurturing of its key components. • Creative exploration and critical inquiry of the built environment is a difficult and demanding task that rewards preparation, hard work and special skills and talents. The culture and

touchstone of architectural education is the extraordinary effort and passion that is demanded of students and faculty alike. Long hours, painstaking craftsmanship, and academic rigor are expected from the entire scholarly community.

• Architects have an ethical responsibility to society and to the environment, especially to our own community where we potentially have the greatest impact. We believe that every faculty member is charged with teaching and modeling the values associated with ethical practice: cooperation, sensitivity to place and people, collaboration, environmental sustainability, and high aesthetic and moral standards.

• An interdisciplinary and engaged education is our tradition and a model for society’s future problem solving demands. Architects have traditionally embraced technology, humanities, social science, and the arts in order to solve multi-layered problems. Through our studio and workshops, we engage the student and the world in a unique pedagogy; a pedagogy that we believe can be shared with the university as a whole.

• New technology is an energizing force, especially when combined with traditional methods. High-speed information processing and computer graphics have revolutionized our professions, raising new theoretical, practical, and philosophical issues as well as technical ones. We believe in embracing these changes while examining their impact.

The SoA has a studio culture policy that is discussed with students at each degree stage including the pre-major workshops, junior year undergraduate studio and in the comprehensive studio of the graduate program. The policy is found on the school’s website. The SoA, not unlike the university as a whole, has a special student demographic of slightly older students, many of whom are married with children and employed part time. Thus our student behavior issues are centered around helping students manage the myriad demands associated with external obligations. Guest lectures, AIAS functions, project tours,


September 2012

5

conferences, and study travel can be challenging, so the School has responded by accommodating these challenges creatively. For example, international studios are often planned in short increments or over an intensive summer rather semester-long commitments. The University of Utah recognizes that diverse faculty, student, and staff populations benefit and enrich the educational experiences of the entire campus and greater community. The University of Utah is committed to removing barriers that have been traditionally encountered by individuals from underrepresented groups; strives to recruit students, faculty and staff who will further enrich our campus diversity; and makes every attempt to support their academic, professional and personal success while they are here. The School of Architecture is a leader in faculty diversity in the University. As of 2012, there are 7 female faculty members out of 16 tenured or tenure track total representing 43.8%. This exceeds the 20% of licensed women architects nationally and compares very favorably with 40% of women enrolled in IDP nationally. Currently 18.8% of the faculty are minorities. This demonstrates drastic improvement from the 2007 APR that indicated 28% female and 8% minority faculty members. This improvement can be attributed to substantial efforts in recruiting of new faculty hires in the face of several retirements. The faculty includes not only multiple ethnicities, but diversity in sexual orientation, gender, age, religion, and national origin. The School shares the aspirations and policies of the University of Utah. In the years since the last accreditation visit, the gender and ethnic diversity of the student body has increased in both the pre-professional and professional degree programs. In 2007, women in the pre-professional program were 26% in 2007, and increased slightly to 27% in 2011. In 2007, women students in the graduate program were 30%, and increased to 33% in 2011. These increases have been fairly steady, however, they are not reflective of the University of Utah average, where 44% of the students in professional graduate programs are women. Utah has a relatively low pool of minority students, however, the University of Utah has been successful, particularly in recruiting Hispanic students. In 2007, the University Utah comprised 11.3% in all minority groups, and increased to 13.4% in 2011. The architecture undergraduate major (including pre-major and pre-professional) did slightly better: Minority students in 2007 were 14%, but increased to 19% in 2011. Minority students in the graduate program were only 4% of the total in 2007, increasing to 8% in 2011. Our goal is to increase the number of women and minority students to reflect the university averages, at a minimum. This begins with recruiting into the undergraduate pre-professional program and continues with recruiting out of state in the graduate program. The College has a recruitment officer who conducts outreach programs to local high schools especially in under-represented schools in order to recruit minorities and women. The 2012 Strategic Plan of the SoA indicates strategies to increase diversity both by outreach and greater recruitment of non-resident students. A greater percentage of women and minority students is important to provide a full discussion, understanding and awareness of architectural issues. The SoA also conducts classes focused upon teaching the ability to empathize and understand alternative communities and audiences. The classes include the undergraduate class in Human Dimensions and Honors People and Places. At the graduate level we offer community based studios typically engaged in the poorer neighborhoods of the city, DesignBuildBluff that builds net zero houses on the Navajo Indian Reservation, and travel based studios to New Orleans and Haiti also contribute to thoughtful reflection on cultural differences.


September 2012

6

I.1.3. Responses to the Five Perspectives

Architectural Education and the Academic Community The School of Architecture is an important contributor to the core commitments of the University of Utah: Architectural Education and the Students Student success and engagement. This includes revising the general education experience and creating engaged learning experiences and learning communities for all students. Architecture Associate Professor Mimi Locher is one of the two university leaders of the “MUSE” program, which creates and funds engaged learning. These efforts extend the reach of liberal education and offer holistic benefits to our students as well. The Associate Vice President of Academic Affairs, who is the key driver of these efforts, is Dr. Martha Bradley, Professor of Architecture. Dr Bradley is outspoken about borrowing the pedagogical techniques of architecture to enhance student success at the U. Research and teaching excellence. This includes a dedication to innovation in research and teaching, creativity, and entrepreneurship. Associate Professor of Architecture Patrick Tripeny leads the Center for Teaching and Learning at the U, and Jim Agutter, assistant professor, leads the University’s Innovation Lab, which is a joint project of medicine, business, engineering, architecture and design. The SoA has participated in the Creative Campus Initiative which include conducting an interdisciplinary design competition to reimagine the library plaza, which has resulted in new seating, food services and sun-shade elements. CA+P has been asked to reimagine the football fan experience for the university athletic program. One of the SoA undergraduate students won a public art installation design competition called the Fluid Adagio that included a constructed installation next to the Capitol Theatre in downtown Salt Lake. We have also been involved in two start up companies, one of which just signed an agreement with GE. Diversity. Diversity includes both cultural as well as ethnic diversity. The SoA is a leader in faculty diversity and supports trans-disciplinary and interdisciplinary efforts through our several joint degree and certificate programs. The pursuit and practice of sustainability. The SoA is a leader in campus sustainability as well as sustainability research. Our project to renovate the Architecture Building will be the largest renovation of building into net zero in the US. Our Integrated Technology and Architecture Center (ITAC) brings together professionals, students and faculty to introduce technical advances in sustainability. ITAC also is pursuing significant research of passive design, including monitoring of passive energy strategies. The Design Build/Bluff program introduces student directly to off-the-grid problems through construction of a house on the Navajo reservation. Finally, the School and the College are active participants in the Global Change and Sustainability Research Center, and CMP’s Metropolitan Research Center (including a book series with a new title on “Stewardship of the Built Environment” by Professor of Architecture, Robert Young.) Dean Scheer is also the chair of the U’s sustainability leadership team. A collective global vision and strategy. The U has joined a collaboration of eight other universities in forming the Songdo Global University with the main campus located in South Korea. The CA+P has agreed to provide an Environmental Design curriculum for this institution starting in 2014. The program will include an exchange of students, faculty and curriculum and will be completed in cooperation with six other colleges on campus. The SoA conducts numerous internationally based studios to Japan, Germany, Italy, and Haiti as well as throughout the United States. The SoA continues to maintain an exchange program with the Universidad Nacional del Litoral in Santa Fe, Argentina. Building community. The University has extensive service and community outreach resources in the Bennion Community Service Center, Continuing Education, public radio and tv stations, Office of Equity and Diversity, LGBT Resource Center; Veterans Support Center and Women’s Resource Center. Many SoA classes are community-engaged classes, but the premier example is the DesignBuild/Bluff studio, which brings wonderful attention to the U as well as provides an exceptional experience for students.


September 2012

7

A broadened sense of leadership. This includes a new commitment to leverage opportunities for the members of the U community to make a difference and a positive impact. This particular commitment is very well aligned with the new mission of the SoA that was adopted this year. Our commitment to changing local and global appreciation for the value of design means a new emphasis on the values we bring to our students. Architectural Education and the Regulatory Environment Preparation of students to live and work in a global world: One of the CA+P short term or “smart goals” has identified “[to] select or retain three to four international exchange programs for the College”. The college maintains a long standing exchange program with La Universidad Nacional del Litoral in Santa Fe Argentina. The CA+P has committed to the Songdo Global University in South Korea to provide curriculum, faculty and student exchanges. The SoA has initiated preliminary discussions with the Iberoamericana Universidad in Mexico City to conduct a joint design build program in Chiapas, Mexico with the non-profit, Escalara Group. The travel based studios and programs to Haiti, Germany, Italy, Japan as well as the continental United States are typical of the global emphasis of our curriculum. These travel related studio concentrate on building enduring relationships with cultures and traditions that are significantly different than those found in the Western United States. The students are exposed to city’s with much greater commitment to urban planning, greater density and mass transit. These communities have typically a much higher regard for the importance of architecture. Students are then exposed to these traditions in meeting with other students in these places, discussing real project problems. In the undergraduate program we have one required course ARCH 3850, Human Dimensions in particular that exposes students to first interpreting their cultural landscape from multiple cultural perspectives. Then the students extend this investigation to other culture and places looking at class structure and colonial conditioning. This provides students with the tools to better understand and thus empathize with diverse points of view through an analytical and dispassionate lense. The travel studios endeavor to repeatedly return to the same locations so that lessons in community building that may occur in disadvantage neighborhoods in Salt Lake can be tested in foreign contexts. The SoA has evolved from a focus on western Americana and the powerful yet fragile landscape of the west to a more global reference where we test methodologies for engagement on multiple levels and locations. Thus out students are empowered with global tools, technologies and information based methods to first empathize then interpret local architectural issues. Architectural Education and the Profession The SoA introduces students to the process of education, experience and examination required to become a licensed architect. The subject matter is first introduced in the pre-undergraduate major, Introduction to Architecture class, first year undergraduate major as part of student orientation, at the graduate level with the Comprehensive Studio ARCH 6015 and finally in the first session of the professional practice class ARCH 6700. The Architectural Licensing Board for the State of Utah pays for the initial $100 enrollment fee for IDP for all students, which is a considerable inducement. As a result 90% of graduate students are enrollment in IDP. The chair of the department, Prescott Muir, who is a practicing architect, is also the IDP Education Coordinator and regularly attends the NCARB annual Coordinators Conference. The SoA has an ongoing dialogue with the Utah State Department of Professional Licensing Board who contributes annually to the SoA lecture series. Evidence of our success is the ARE pass rate. The SoA consistently has one of the highest ARE pass rates in the nations. For 2011 the SoA was ranked 13th out of the 117 accredited programs, and consistently and historically performs at that level or higher.


September 2012

8

A global perspective begins with understanding the mediation between ideas and social, cultural and material imperatives found in the particular and local. Many of our studios especially ARCH 6016 Community Studio and ARCH 6030, Urban Design Studio are based upon engagement with real communities. The Comprehensive Studio ARCH 6015 that is a requirement of all M. Arch graduate students is typically based in Salt Lake in disadvantaged neighborhoods so that students develop empathetic methods for interpreting the community, environmental and infrastructural issue of real local contexts. Subsequent studios are typically travel based studios that take students to diverse communities around the world in order to test design methodologies originally developed in local research. These travel experiences typically include visits to architectural firms. Many members of the local architecture profession participate in juries and serve adjunct faculty. Further students in their pro-practice leadership segment learn the capabilities and opportunities provided by innovative technologies such as BIM, Urban Design, Passive Solar, digital fabrication to further convey the global attributes of technology. Issues of sustainability are imbedded across the curriculum. Typically in the Comprehensive Studio students conduct a LEED based site selection and analysis as just one example. All of our design studio problems follow LEED criteria for in-fill development or brown field reclamation. The projects also typically include mixed use with direct access to mass transit. Architectural Education and the Public Good The SoA Professional Practice class has a leadership component where all graduate students engage in leadership skill development with case study analysis and real problems solving that requires collaboration and consensus building. Because of the strength of the CA+P’s City and Metropolitan Planning department and through cross-disciplinary studios and seminars, students are exposed to the mechanics of public engagement and community need assessment. Students also develop leadership skills through group projects, which are common at nearly all levels. Once the site design and public infrastructural issues are determined in collaborative students groups, they move forward within site specific building designs working within the design parameters established by the student cohort. Civic engagement and ethical response of architects is a key value that the School holds in nearly all of its actions, especially the Strategic Plan. Many of the action items in the plan are focused on providing this perspective to students and to the wider world.

I.1.4. Long Range Planning

After the formation of the College of Architecture + Planning in 2003 a strategic plan for the College was developed. This was the product of focus groups, outcome assessment and faculty retreats. The CA+P Strategic Plan update (2007) called for five strategic objectives in the areas of outreach, reputation, student quality, engagement and facilities. The plan was broad and encompassed the entire College. With many of the initial objectives accomplished especially the successful integration of the Planning Department, SoA initiated its own strategic planning process in 2011 with a final plan document published in August of 2012. The Strategic Plan process included assessment from exit interviews conducted by the chair of all undergraduate and graduate students; course evaluations; an anonymous survey of graduate students; surveys completed by jurors for the final studios and an annual faculty review of student work. The SoA conducted four partially facilitated faculty retreats and subcommittees continued to work to refine the parts. The Strategic Plan was completed at the end of the Spring semester 2012. The contents of the Strategic Plan will be vetted by the College Advisory Committee, alumni association, adjuncts and the AIA Utah Board of Directors. The strategic plan sets out an immediate action plan for the SoA faculty committees as well as five year and longer actionable items. Promoting scholarship, inculcating leadership skills, community engagement and service with a global and local perspective, social and environmental equity are hallmarks of the plan. Further the University’s Graduate College Council conducts a six year departmental review that includes a self-report, external and internal peer review, senior university administrative review and final approval


September 2012

9

by the University’s Graduate Council and Faculty Senate. This review and assessment was completed in Spring of 2012.

I.1.5. Program Self Assessment Section 1.1.4 describes the various strategic plans and the methods for developing such plans in compliance with the SoA mission. The methods for assessment are conducted at the course level in the form of student evaluations, exit interviews (conducted by the faculty) and outside juries in studios and guest lectures in seminars. While at the school level assessment methods include a strategic plan, institutional graduate council review, student exit interviews, assessment survey, juror survey and an alumni survey, because of the SoA’s relative small size and intimate relationship between faculty and students, the faculty is able to take the ideas generated through assessment as well as from more formal documents such as strategic plans and surveys and immediately evaluate them in a very nimble fashion with the ability to provide an expedited response. Course Level Assessment Course level assessment begins with a clear articulation of course outcomes and student learning objectives. The outcomes need then to correspond to grading so that satisfaction of outcomes is clearly rewarded. External assessment comes from juries comprised of outside professionals and external industry based guest lecturers and guest critics. The faculty conduct exit interviews with students to assess performance and to better understand the success of conveying and reception of information and skill development. The students are also given access to an anonymous student survey of the course outcomes and net expectations. The survey provides measurements against the course past performance, departmental performance and university wide topical performance criteria. The survey evaluations are reviewed by the chair at the end of each semester and inform the process for reappointment of auxiliary faculty and the RPT process for regular faculty. For the final graduate studio we provide a survey to jurors to be completed as part of the jury process. The jurors, as mentioned, are typically outside professionals with guest jurors brought in from prominent nationals firms, and other universities. Department Level Assessment The departmental assessment occurs at multiple levels. First each graduating student both undergraduate and graduate are interviewed by the department chair with a prescribed list of questions that follow NAAB general performance criteria. Because the chair is also the IDP education coordinator for the state this interview is also used to discuss students’ future and to provide information about professional internship programs available to bridge students into the profession. Exiting students are also provided with an anonymous survey that asks them about SPC related competencies. This information is then shared with the faculty as we meet as a whole to look at and evaluate student work examples. The year-end assessment becomes the agenda for the subsequent year’s curriculum committee which formulates concrete suggestions for curriculum changes that will lead to improved outcomes. This is then taken to the faculty for final approval. As mentioned the faculty on an annual basis reviews student work as a whole that became more systematic in 2011. Faculty and auxiliary faculty groups acting as a curricular cohort review representations of student work and outcomes. Each cohort is made up of faculty representing the curricular sector, external faculty to the sector and outside observers. After individual sector assessment the faculty, adjuncts and guests reconvene as a whole to compare and discuss findings. The students and their work is also assessed in various other forms including a firm fair held once per year where students show their portfolios to represented firms student firm visits conducted in the professional practice classes, a mentoring program in conjunction with AIA Utah where students are partnered with members of the profession and general feedback from auxiliary faculty typically successful practitioners in the field.


September 2012

10

College and Institutional Assessment The college maintains a close relationship with the professional community, representatives of which serve on the College Advisory Committee and provide professional feedback to the college. The college conducts an alumni survey that for the sake of the SoA questions alumni about the success of the program in preparing them for professional life and alternative careers should that be the case. The chair meets monthly with the Dean both individually, and as a college executive committee member to share changes in the curriculum and feedback from students and outside observers. The faculty, chair and dean all serve on various external committees both within the profession and at various other levels of community engagement. Information is brought back into the SoA from these liaisons. The CA+P is currently engaged in a capital campaign for a major renovation. Numerous professional firms have contributed to the facility assessment that include external review of programs and curriculum. The college once per semester sits as a college council of all faculty and staff to review and approve major new curricular changes and programs. This affords interdisciplinary exchange and raise potential for collaboration. The University is accredited by the northwest Commission on Colleges and Universities which conducts its own external assessment. The University’s Graduate School conducts a review of each department every six years. The SoA just completed its review in 2012. The graduate council review includes both external and internal reviews comprised of interviews and review of the departments self-report document. This review will be available in the team room I.2. Resources I.2.1. Human Resources & Human Resource Development Faculty/Staff The School of Architecture has 16 faculty appointed (or jointly appointed) as tenured or tenure-track faculty. Several of the regular faculty have administrative appointments of in the general university, including Bradley, Locher, and Tripeny, which reduces their teaching FTE (reference supplement). Scheer, Agutter, and Muir have administrative duties that support the College and the School and reduce their teaching FTE’s. There are two clinical faculty, whose FTE are adjusted based on their professional practice obligations, Hoffman and Tobler. Part-time adjunct faculty play an important role in the teaching mission of the SoA There are thirty-seven adjunct appointments associated with the Architecture program. Eight of them are senior appointments that have taught annually for more than eight years. A larger complement are relatively junior professionals with three or more years of experience teaching, while 12 are visitors with a short term appointment, who are rotated to provide fresh perspective to the program. (see Table 2) During the last five years three tenure-track faculty were hired. There were also two clinical faculty hires. During that time four tenured faculty retired and one left for another position. This summer the University provided a new, dedicated line within the SoA. This money has been used to support a history/theory/studio position hiring. The SoA was successful in hiring a woman of color for this position. As a means of offsetting the regular faculty diversity, we hire diverse adjunct faculty emphasizing a wide variety of life experiences. The SoA has endeavored to develop women and minority adjuncts over time with considerable mentoring thus developing strong effective teachers within our ranks. The SoA maintains a guide for adjunct faculty to assist them in understanding their role. Adjunct faculty are part of committees and they attend the faculty retreat. The School of Architecture enjoys both the intimacy of a small professional school, and the resources and diversity of a Research I university. With an average of approximately 86 graduate students in the professional programs, we provide students with immediate access to faculty, administration, and staff. Simultaneously, faculty and students can access the resources of a large research institution, with its concomitant intellectual, artistic, cultural, social, and athletic resources.


September 2012

11

Table 2 Architecture Faculty Teaching FTE Regular (Tenured and tenure-track) Faculty

Registered Architect

2010-2011 2011-2012

Agutter, Jim No Benham, Lisa Henry No 0.5 1.0 Bradley, Martha No 0.25 0.25 Carraher, Erin Yes 1.0 Fischer, Ole **No 0.50 1.0 Locher, Mira Yes 0.5 0.5 Miller, William Yes 1.0 Mooney, Anne Yes 1.0 0.50 Muir, Prescott Yes 0.63 0.63 Ruegemer, Joerg *No 1 1 Scheer, Brenda Yes 0.25 Serrato-Combe, Tony No 1.50 1.50 Smith, Ryan No 1 1 Tripeny, Pat Yes 1.0 0.5 Young, Robert No 1.0 1.0 Yusef, Shundana No *Ruegemer is licensed in Germany REGULAR FTE 10.1 9.9 **Fischer is licensed in Switzerland Clinical Faculty 2010-2011 2011-2012

Hoffman, Dan Yes 0.75 0.75 Tobler, Stephen Yes 0.75 0.75 CLINICAL FTE 1.5 1.5 Adjunct Faculty 2010-2011 2011-2012

Adams, Verl Yes 0.75 0.50 Atherton, Peter No 0.25 0.25 Bagnasacco, Marco ***No 0.75 0.50 Brems, David Yes 0.13 Coburn, Craig No 0.13 0.25 Farrington, Bob No 0.25 0.25 Gardiner, Diana No 1.25 1.25 Goss, Peter No 0.25 0.25 Greub, Charlott No 0.25 0.25 Gundersen, Hunter No 0.25 0.25 Haslam, Libby Yes 0.25 0.25 Jensen, Cory No 0.25 Knight, Randall Yes 0.13 0.13 Larice, Michael No 0.25 Larsen, Shalae Yes 0.75 0.5 Louis, Hank Yes 0.25 1.0 McMullin, Paul No 0.39 0.51 Miller, William Yes 0.25 Rainey, J Woody Yes 0.13 Sabiston. Sarah Yes 0.13 Silva, Erin Yes 0.25 0.25 Tsoutsounakis, Elpitha No 0.25 0.25 Vela, Michael Yes 0.25 0.25 Wander, Marianne Yes 0.13 0.13 Yee, Dwight No 0.13 0.50 ***Bagnasacco is licensed in Italy ADJUNCT FTE 7.42 8.15 TOTAL FTE 19.1 19.5


September 2012

12

Despite its size, the SoA participates actively in the larger university's general education program. For the university’s general education, intellectual explorations requirement, we offer foundation courses in the Fine Arts, Diversity and Humanities areas. These include Design Workshop, Introduction to Architecture, Race and Gender in Architectural Studies and People and Places. The freshman seminar is part of the university’s LEAP program, which is a cohort-based program for freshman students who take classes together during their first year at the university. With the Planning Department, we offer a People and Places course that is part of the Honors College Program. This class is a designated “service learning course” by the Lowell Bennion Community Service Center. Additionally, one of the four Distinguished Service Learning Professors comes from the SoA. The Architecture Student Service Internship or the services provided for historic buildings by the Preservation Technology and Building Assessment courses are examples of carrying this idea of service learning to the graduate level.The DesignBuildBluff program participates with the AmeriCorps to provide service to the Navajo Indian Reservation. The students supplement their academic experience with addition service hours dedicated to the project that coincidentally qualify as IDP supplementary experience credit. Last year one of our studios participated in a design build collaboration with an NGO in Haiti that included a collaboration with University of Haiti civil engineering students. Design and planning studios have provided design expert assistance to many local institutions such as the Utah Girl Scouts of America. Women faculty and students are designing cabins for the scouts as well as mentoring young women by introducing an “architecture badge” for senior girl scouts. The SoA actively seeks interdisciplinary opportunities across campus for our students. Within our instructional setting, we regularly interact with the College of Fine Arts (especially the Visual Arts and Dance), the College of Social and Behavioral Sciences (Psychology, Family and Consumer Studies for environmental and behavior related issues), the David Eccles School of Business Administration (for our joint MBA/M. Arch. program), the Language Department and the Department of Neuroscience. We also have connections with Computer Sciences, the Medical School, the Scientific Computing & Imaging Institute, and the Tanner Humanities Center, among others, for our interdisciplinary research activities. The advancement of knowledge plays an important role in the life of the faculty. Current scholarly and creative activities in the school include: 1) sponsored research activities; 2) faculty scholarship that results in papers, articles, and books; and 3) creative activities such as the production of public or private installation art and exemplary architectural designs. Since the last review we have significantly increased our productivity in these areas. Faculty activities also result in a significant body of publications, papers, and presentations. The range and diversity of intellectual inquiry for the faculty covers architectural as well as social and cultural history, architectural theory, social and architectural criticism, technology, representation and communication, historic preservation and creative work. All tenure/tenure-track faculty have active and directed scholarly or creative agendas resulting in a wide variety of national and international publications, presentations, and recognition for creative work. A number of these faculty members regularly receive grants from foundations and other sources to support their research and scholarship. A selected sampling of organizations where papers have been presented include Association for Computer Aided Design in Architecture, Inter-American Society of Digital Graphics (First Prize,) International Computer Association in Architectural Design, Architectural Research Centers Consortium, Association of Collegiate Schools of Architecture (national and regional), International Association for Housing Science, AIA Diversity Conference, International Seminar on Urban Form, World Congress of the International Union of Architects, Association of Architectural Historians, International Making Cities Livable Conferences, Environmental Design Research Association, the College Art Association, AIA National and State conferences, and the National Green Building Conference. The faculty have a significant number of books published. Among the 15 faculty, 10 have written at least one published book or have monographs of their work. A number of faculty are engaged in creative work at the state and regional level which display a wide range of scope and public engagement. The work of design faculty members has received recognition


September 2012

13

including AIA design awards that maintains an important balance in the School with the other research and scholarly activities of the faculty. Seven members of our faculty including two clinical appointments maintain influential architectural practices. Of these one maintains a practice in Europe while the others practice in Salt Lake, Phoenix, Portland and Los Angeles. The faculty has received AIA Western Mountain Region, AIA Utah, AIA Arizona, AIA Boston, AIA Louisiana and AIA New England Design awards. They have been widely published and recognized for their creative work. Funding for programs within SoA is modest but growing. Faculty have successfully sought grants from local foundations and corporations (Eccles, Rocky Mountain Power, 3Form) and the University (research teaching, and, technology) as well as small grants from national foundations (DOE, Graham Foundation). ITAC has typically garnered about $100,000 in external support per year. Larger research grants must reach beyond traditional areas and, in so doing, shape the nature of the future research. Fortunately, an important part of the research being done in the SoA introduces the visualization and problem solving strategies of architecture to other disciplines such as medicine, neuroscience, building technologies and practices. However, funding for research in history, theory and cultural arenas is more difficulty to achieve. For these reasons, a stronger relationship and better communication with the various available funding agencies including the University's office of the Vice President for Research has been a priority for the SoA during the past few years. Within its resources, the SoA has offered faculty seed grant funds and continues to support faculty travel to attend national and international conferences where papers and other presentations are being delivered. The faculty has strong connections with a variety of scholarly bodies for interchange and other peer associations. CA+P provides a grant writer to assist in applications and grant management. The SoA’s faculty actively participate in college, university, civic and professional organizations. Within the university, CA+P is committed to governance activities that provides an active voice in university affairs that far exceeds the relevant size of the unit. Faculty serve on all major university committees as well as many special committees such as the Office of Sustainability, the Center for Creative Experience and the Center for Excellence in Teaching and Learning. In the community and within the profession, the faculty is again very active at a variety of levels of service, on a multitude of membership boards and other committee assignments. Service to the profession is an important responsibility for members of a professional program. The faculty has played key roles in community groups such as Downtown Rising, the Utah Arts Council, Salt Lake County Arts Demonstration Board, Salt Lake Chamber of Commerce, Zap Tax Renewal, Salt Lake Downtown Alliance, Park City Arts Center and Downtown Cultural District Stakeholders. SoA faculty are actively engaged in national level service as well, including National Architecture Accreditation Board accreditation visiting teams, Association of Collegiate Schools of Architecture, and the Society of Architectural Historians. At the international level faculty serve on the following boards: Association for Computer Aided Design in Architecture, Association for Preservation Technology International, Inter-American Society of Digital Graphics, and the International Sculpture Center Board. Service on local boards include, numerous city and county committees ranging from the Art and Design Board, Salt Lake Planning Commission, Salt Lake Re-Development Agency, (RAC Board), to the Salt Lake City Landmarks Commission; and on the boards of non-profit organizations such as ASSIST, the Community Design Center, the Utah Arts Council, the Utah Heritage Foundation, the Salt Lake Art Center, the Salt Lake Art Design Board, the Contemporary Arts Groups, the Utah Architectural League, the Tanner Trust, the Traditional Building Skills Institute, and the Utah Center for Architecture, to name a few. A number of the faculty are members, active participants, and past board members in the American Institute of Architects, among other professional groups and organizations. The School continues to actively support faculty, staff, and student involvement in such essential activities.


September 2012

14

An often under-recognized component of service to the community found in the SoA is that offered through course work and faculty led student involvement. As discussed above, maintaining the commitment to service learning in the graduate program has been an important characteristic of the SoA. Graduate design studios regularly work with local organizations to explore how better design could enhance their missions. Many of these collaborations have led to major building projects by these organizations. Groups who have benefited from the ideas and collaboration with studios include the City of Green River, Utah; Provo, Utah; Evanston, Wyoming; Las Vegas, Nevada; Rio Mesa Research Center; the Navajo Indian Reservation, the Salt Lake Chamber of Commerce and West Valley City. In the past faculty and students have been key members of R/UDAT teams (the national AIA's Rural/Urban Design Assistance Team) that provided major master planning contributions for both Salt Lake City, West Valley City and the Salt Lake Winter Olympics. The SoA’s Integration of Technology in Architecture Center (ITAC) led by Associate Professor, Ryan Smith and Assistant Professor, Joerg Ruegemer has been very impactful in the housing industry by developing low energy, lean housing prototypes in collaboration with one of the biggest home builders of the state. Over ten years ago the School initiated its DesignBuildBluff program, where groups of fifteen graduate students live and build houses for families on the Navajo Indian Reservation while at the same time documenting historic buildings in the area and studying Native American history and vernacular architecture. While the service provided by the SoA to the University, the profession and the community is significant and contributes meaningfully to these agencies, service provides depth and meaning to the general pedagogy of the program. The SoA, its faculty and students, are greatly enriched by the experiences and learning that takes place while providing service. The idea and commitment to the making of architecture, in an ethical way, requires a deep understanding of place borne of material, technique and cultural investigations. Service ties back to the teaching mission of the SoA where the faculty prides itself in providing essential technical competency and leadership skills with a solid ethical grounding. A copy of the current RPT guidelines for the College is provided in the Supplemental APR. The effective date for these guidelines is June 30, 2008 with recent update to better comply with university guideline. Faculty mentoring is recognized as an important part of young faculty's growth. The small size of the SoA facilitates an informal and personal approach to the mentoring process. The Dean and Chair are the primary mentors and work closely with young faculty as they move through the RPT process, which naturally involves review and interaction regarding all their teaching, research and service activities. The Dean conducts regular training sessions for all new tenure-track faculty. At the present time three faculty members are untenured/tenure track. Tenure-track faculty are formally reviewed at three years and five years for retention, and informally reviewed in the remaining years. See 1.3.1 for a table of the retention and tenure of faculty since the last review. Tenured faculty must also be reviewed on a five-year schedule. This review is to assess the faculty members continued compliance with RPT standards. Faculty who fall short in this assessment are expected to prepare a plan to remedy their deficiencies, with the assistance of the chair and the dean. Five year reviews have no affect on a tenure appointment. Copies of vitae for faculty and adjuncts are gathered in APR Supplement. Students The SoA’s enrollment has remained relatively constant as a product of desired selectivity and the constraints of facilities. The SoA is conscious of its need to service the professional employment needs of the state of Utah and maintains a close dialogue with the professional community concerning their labor needs through the CA+P Advisory Board, Alumni Association and the AIA. Until the recent downturn in the economy the SoA was seeing one hundred percent employment of its graduates who sought work in the profession. The current rate of placement is approximately 30-35%. Student recruitment is a continuing concern for the SoA. Our efforts in recruitment are discussed above in 1.1.2 B Social Equity. There are both informal and formal ways in which we attempt to strengthen our


September 2012

15

applicant pool, particularly in the area of under-represented groups. Until recently, the SoA continued to operate with an applicant pool at least twice as large as its acceptance level on both the undergraduate and graduate level. While this allows for adequate selectivity, the pool continues to remain thin in minorities and women applicants. The SoA maintains an articulation agreement with Salt Lake Community College, Dixie State College, and a new one with the University of Wyoming, admitting 4 to 7 students primarily from Salt Lake Community College in each admissions cycle. Evaluation and admission of applicants, while basically the same on both the graduate and undergraduate level, differs in the range and degree of elaboration between the two levels. Admission to the undergraduate major, a restricted major for Juniors and Seniors, takes place once a year during spring semester for enrollment the following fall semester. Students are evaluated based on cumulative GPA, the GPA of the required pre-architecture courses, curriculum choices, i.e., advanced levels of math, physics, the pre-architecture seminar, and a portfolio reviewed that is scored by three independent faculty judges. Students are aware of the minimum 3.0 GPA threshold expected and accordingly may self-select to either defer or choose not to apply. The minimum requirement has become simply a minimum standard, whereas the average GPA for those admitted is 3.4. The applicant pool, despite restrictive requirements, remains very strong. At the graduate level, applicants from undergraduate programs other than our own are evaluated based on cumulative GPA, a written statement of purpose, letters of recommendation, core curriculum and a portfolio. Students from our own pre-professional program are evaluated on the GPA of the courses which comprised the undergraduate major. The GPA for their classes that satisfy NAAB student performance criteria and studio courses are particularly noted. Since our internal students are known to the admission committee, letters of recommendation are not required. The minimum GPA for graduate admission, like the undergraduate GPA, is 3.0. However, in recent years the average GPA for admitted students is 3.38. Since the University of Utah is the only institution offering a Bachelor of Architectural Studies in the state of Utah, the external students applying to the 2 year Master of Architecture program are typically non-resident students. As an example in 2012 the external students represented about 30% of all applicants. These students come from a variety of U.S. and International institutions. Some U.S. examples include BSAS degrees from Kent State, Washington State, University of New Mexico, University of Michigan, Clemson University, University of Colorado-Boulder, Ball State University and Ohio State University. Applicants from foreign countries come from a wide variety of school such as King Abdul Aziz University, Moscow Institute of Architecture, Iran University of Art, International University of Science and Technology, Seoul National University, University of Rohuk and Inner Mongolia University of Science and Technology. All our graduate applicants first apply to the University’s Graduate School where degrees and GPA’s from foreign school are evaluated and calibrated to U.S. equivalency. The students TOEFL scores are reviewed. Only those students who meet the minimum entry standards of the University then proceed on to the department for review. The departmental review is conducted by the admissions committee (AC) chair who is a regular faculty member. Their committee is typically comprised of three other faculty who then assist in reviewing and grading submitted materials. The ranking is numerical. The AC pays particular attention to non-resident and foreign students. The AC maintains a file of course requirements on familiar U.S. programs. This may include specific course descriptions and syllabi viewed as satisfying NAAB SPC. For this student group GPA’s and completed undergraduate courses are closely evaluated against portfolios in order to better understand the applicants understanding and demonstration of design fundamentals. Once the AC makes its recommendations to the chair for acceptance, wait listing or rejection, the chair looks closely at the data and personally reviews portfolios of borderline, international and wait listed students. Some of the evaluation is based anecdotally on past performance of students from the same


September 2012

16

programs. The chair then makes the final decision on admittance. Some borderline or questionable students are asked to provide additional information about their undergraduate degrees. The 3+ students both resident and non-residents are evaluated and admitted based upon a similar process as conducted for the 2 year M Arch applicants. However, since the non-architecture undergraduate degrees for these students do not satisfy NAAB Student Performance Criteria, the course schedule and descriptions is not scrutinized to the same degree. The SoA receives a wide variety of 3+ student applicants from myriad degree backgrounds from civil and structural engineering, planning, landscape architecture to English and French literature majors. For the 3+ students the one admissions exception are those applicants from the University of Wyoming Architectural-Engineering program. The SoA has an articulation agreement whereby depending upon specific undergraduate classes taken, many of the graduate school required credits in structures and technology are waived, thus making those students a hybrid between the 2 and 3+ year programs. Occasionally certain students are admitted contingent on satisfactory performance in classes where they are perceived to be weak. If performance is unsatisfactory they will be required to take additional credits in a particular area. Recruitment and retention of under-represented students especially students of particular merit has been approached through counseling and encouragement from faculty and other mentors. The small size of the SoA and close relationships built between students and faculty have made this an effective means in the past. Recognizing the importance of recruitment to elevate the quality of students as well as recruitment of women and students from underserved communities, the CA+P has hired a recruitment officer, Kassy Keen, and consolidated these efforts at the college level. Some of her recruitment responsibilities include talking with prospective students, meeting with high school counselors, going to targeted high school classrooms to talk up the program, preparing college fair display packets, and working closely with faculty to develop curricular programs that recruit and retain targeted student groups. A couple of ideas that will be tested in the next year include a summer interior design seminar in order to recruit high school women and a design build workshop in the mountains targeting potential non-resident students. A snapshot of graduate admissions including both 3+ and 2 year M. Arch for the present year is included in the Supplement. This is a very typical profile of an admitted class. At the time of our previous self-study (2004) the level of student aid was $208,190. Graduate students in M ARCH degree program have priority in receiving scholarship awards. Undergraduate students may generally take advantage of the University's scholarship and financial aid programs. Currently the level of aid for graduate students is approximately $45,000 in fellowships (scholarships), given primarily by the professional community and construction related industries, and approximately $66,000 in graduate and teaching assistantships are awarded. Another $18,000 is made available through grants for research assistantships with a combined student aid support of $129,000. These funds are augmented through the Graduate School's tuition benefit program. The tuition benefit of approximately $66,222 or 51% of the total value of the financial aid is a critical component of the total financial aid program. Fellowships and assistantships are awarded on a competitive basis based on academic performance and need. Normally, better than 55% of the students requesting aid receive some form (amount) of aid. Table 3 details the distribution of financial aid. Not included in the aid discussed above is the Roger Bailey Traveling Fellowship Fund which supplies support for international travel and related expenses. The Fellow is selected depending on resources from those graduating M. Arch students who submit a travel proposal and portfolio. Historically, the Fellowship award has been from $4,000 to $4,500. The current endowment generates about $2,000 per year. Without an increase in the endowment, it will be difficult to maintain the momentum and continuity of the program. The Henrietta Johnson Lewis Symposia has in the past generated $500 a year to


September 2012

17

support a writing on architecture symposia that invites a guest lecturer with student written rebuttals. Because of the lack of proceeds from the endowment the program has been dormant for several years. The College is in the process of transferring this endowment to benefit the DesignBuildBluff program. Table 3 Financial Support for Students 2011-12 Type Number Cash Value Tuition Benefit Total Value Graduate Fellowship

15 45,000

25,470 70,470

Teaching Assistantship

21 63,000 35,658 98,658

Graduate Assistantship

1 3,000 1,698 4,698

Research Assistantship

3 18,000 3,396 21,396

Sub Total 40 129,000 66,222 195,222 Undergrad Univ Scholarship

4 24,000 27,000

Kass Endowment 3 3,000 Total 47 156,000 66,222 222,222 Academic advising until 2007 had been the responsibility of the Associate Dean of the college. Since 2007, the advisor, Ms. Focht, handles the advising for enrolled undergraduate and graduate SoA students. The College recruitment officer, Ms. Keen, meets with all pre-majors and transfer students to counsel them on the admission requirements for the major and the process of application. Ms. Keen is also the admissions secretary maintaining all necessary files for both undergraduate and graduate admissions. At the point the admissions decision has been made by the Chair, the responsibility shifts to Ms. Focht. Any issues of student misconduct are brought to the attention of the Chair and resolved in consultation with the Associate Dean. Personal, direct, and daily contact between students, faculty, and staff allows for much individualized advising. Nonetheless, the position of advisor in the SoA is essentially combined with the other tasks of the Administrative Assistant. Last year an undergraduate student, serving part of his scholarship requirement, assisted in the office with routine work. Teaching Assistants (TA) in the SoA play an important role in supporting faculty in their teaching mission. T.A.s in the SoA do not conduct their own classes and always work closely under the supervision of faculty. In most instances, the T.A. assists with grading in the lecture classes (structures, environmental controls, history, etc.) and has conducted study groups but is otherwise limited in direct instruction. TAs have been assigned to assist in the pre-architecture design course, the communication course in the first year of the major and Introduction to Architecture pre-major class. In these courses, the faculty member(s) are always in the studio or seminar classroom at the same time observing and interacting with the T.A.s. In such a situation, training for the T.A.s takes the form of mentoring and continual guidance. This year a T.A. has been assigned to be a “go to person” for students’ software related issues when regular faculty are not available. There are TAs assigned to student publications, shop and the digital lab. Administration/Staff The College staff provide much of the support for the SoA, including development, public relations, admissions, and advising. The following description provides the division of responsibilities among the administration and staff of the College and the SoA.


September 2012

18

Responsibilities Dean, Brenda Scheer

Overall responsibility for academic direction of the college; program development and maintenance; strategic planning; budgeting and fund raising; alumni and professional relationships; and execution of university policy. The dean teaches one course every other year in the department.

Associate Dean, Keith Bartholomew

.Res Responsible for student appeals, including coordinating procedural liaison between College and University, oversight of college policies such as RPT. Manages college curriculum committee. The associate dean has a half time teaching commitment in CMP

Administrative Officer, Jenny Lind

Responsible for managing the personnel and financial operations of the College, and is the office manager for the College Dean’s Office staff.

Development Officer, Robbi Richter

Responsible for coordinating the College’s development efforts with the Dean and the University’s development office. Manages development records, including alumni affairs and College advisory committee.

Public Relations, Roger Thom

Responsible for public relations, web presence and design, graphic design, marketing, alumni activities, events, college lecture series, and exhibitions.

Admissions and Academic Advisor, Kassy Keen

Responsible for undergraduate/graduate recrutingment and leads diversity efforts with the dean and associate dean. Advise students on pre-architecture and urban planning major requirements, curriculum, and graduation components. Gather and process graduate admissions applications. Attend outreach events, orientations, and expos.

Network Manager, Derick Bingman

Oversees the building network infrastructure, and all associated computer activities, including hardware and software installation. Maintains college digital licensing agreements

Grants and Contracts Officer, Susan Wolfe

Supports research grant application process and grant budget compliance.

Office support staff, Molly Burkhart

Dean’s office reception, travel planner, facilities coordination, development support staff, building access (U-Card)

Computer Technician, Don Burris

Provides software and hardware support for faculty, staff and students

SoA Adminstrative Assistant, Mayra G Focht

Student liaison and advising, budget posting and account monitoring, fielding inquiries, communicating school policy, to auxiliary faculty, course scheduling, processing reimbursements, maintaining meeting minutes, student admissions and registration oversight.

SoA Shop Supervisor, Keith FIndling

Oversees shop operations, procures and maintains equipment, ensures shop safety and training, Manages several work-study students.

Chair, School of Architecture, Prescott Muir

Responsible for academic program development and direction, department strategic planning, faculty recruitment, and performance evaluation, faculty auxiliary and adjunct teaching allocation and assignments, curriculum development, execution of school policy, student affairs, student advising and faculty mentoring. Department budget management, making committee assignments and chairing faculty meetings. The Director has a 75% teaching load.

Brenda Scheer

I.2.2. Administrative Structure & Governance Administrative Structure: The SoA is an independent unit within the College of Architecture + Planning. Prescott Muir is the chair of the department with independent responsibility for oversight of negotiating and maintaining employment contracts for faculty, adjunct faculty and department staff. The chair sets the overall curricular agenda, class scheduling, committee structure and committee appointments, admissions, outreach, budget, and general compliance with and achievement of strategic goals.


September 2012

19

The chair reports to the Dean, Brenda Scheer of the College of Architecture + Planning. The Dean is responsible for overall college policy and procedures, budget, capital campaign, college staff management, university and college related committee assignments from the college, university liaison, college supported lecture series and exhibition, building and building systems management including IT support, allocation of space and class coordination. I.2.3. Physical Resources The Architecture Building is a part of the Art and Architecture Center, designed in 1968 and completed in 1970. It is a 47,000 gross square foot building that is highly regarded for its design by faculty, students and the members of the architecture community. The building boasts interesting and durable materials, important public spaces, and a supportive layout for building community. However, it has been clear for some time that the building is in need of renovation to better modernize the utilization of space (for example, six foot drafting tables may not provide the best space for students), update the systems and energy use, as well as accommodate other changing technology needs. As the College has developed over the past ten years, there are approximately twice as many people using the building than in 2002, and we anticipate that the Interdisciplinary design major will also create a burden. At the last accreditation review we were beginning to anticipate the space squeeze. Since that time, the College has converted lightly used areas and a classroom into faculty offices, research space, and conference areas, which satisfy the need in the immediate term. However the SoA has lost use of a crit space, the slide library and a classroom as a result of the conversion of space. The slide collection and its curator have been transferred to the Marriott Library. Going forward, there is no doubt that the College will need to expand soon. In 2010-11, the College completed a Facilities Study as a first step toward gathering the resources and establishing the need for a renovated building and a new 25,000 square foot addition. Our goal for many years has been for this renovation to bring the building to “net zero”, which will be the largest net zero renovation in the US. This target has brought national resources to bear, including a Commercial Building Partnership with the Department of Energy, and ARRA funds that were used to construct our solar array. The project cost is projected to be $25 million. Additional funding will need to come from community donors and from the University and State of Utah. We anticipate needing to raise an additional $8 million from donors to add to the $4 million from energy cost savings prior to consideration from the State. This high profile project was named an exemplary renovation by the White House in December 2011, through the President’s Better Building Challenge. The building is located next to the University’s Marriott Library, which houses the Katherine W. Dumke Fine Arts and Architecture Library, completed in 2001. The Utah Museum of Fine Arts is also located very close by and is a resource for the program, including the use of its very fine auditorium for professional gatherings and events. The current Architecture Building has generous public space, particularly the Roger Bailey Exhibition Hall used for exhibitions, juries, and receptions that are exclusive to the College. The building has large open studios, faculty and administrative offices, two small classrooms, a computer lab/classroom, an auditorium seating 90, and a very fine wood and metal shop with modest digital fabrication equipment. There are also two formal crit spaces in addition to the Bailey. Although the lighting has been upgraded in the last ten years, lighting continues to be a problem. Classroom, office and lounge furnishing and finishes are also in worn condition, since most date from the building’s completion in 1970. The School of Architecture office space (chair, AA and conference room) was created in 2010. Designed by Assistant Professor Joerg Ruegemer, it features a very modern design that contrasts well in the building. The SoA boasts a large, well-equipped shop available for students. However, the shop does not have space or staff for large-scale digital fabrication needs that have been developing in the past two years. The School has solved this problem temporarily by partnering with Plastik Banana (PB), a digital fabrication shop owned by an alumnus of the program. For a modest fee, PB provides access and instruction on all their equipment, including laser cutters, 3D printers, 5-axis CnC mill, and so on. In the long run, however, the College expansion will be expected to provide new and expanded digital


September 2012

20

fabrication facilities (including a robot arm) to maintain the leadership that the School enjoys and to provide needed facilities for the product design students. A copy of the Facilities Study will be available in the team room. An additional Energy Study is currently being completed with the assistance of the National Renewable Energy Lab in order to demonstrate the strategies needed to achieve net zero. This will also be available in the team room. Floor plans below indicate grey areas that are CMP only. Building Plans – 1st Floor

Building Plans – 2nd Floor


September 2012

21

Building Plans – 2nd Floor

The College of Architecture + Planning computing facilities begin with the network. Our building is connected to the University’s networking backbone with a 2Gb fiber link. The network is distributed to faculty and staff offices and the computer lab with 1Gb bandwidth connections and to studio desktops with 100Mb connections. There are about 550 wired network nodes throughout the college. In addition to the wired network, there are (6) wireless access points installed which support up to 50 connections each at a maximum 802.11n-spec 300Mb bandwidth. The college has (3) primary domain servers each running the Windows Server 2008 operating system supporting file, print, web, network, software licensing, and backup functions. All students, faculty, and staff have computer accounts which allow secured access to personal home folders on the servers containing public web publishing areas and other file shares. Most network shares are also accessible offsite via FTP. Email is available to everyone from the University Umail system servers. An instructional computer lab containing (24) workstations is open for all students to use 24 hours a day 7 days a week whenever a class isn’t in session. For hardware, each workstation contains an Intel i7 processor, 8GB RAM, 120GB solid state drive, and a professional-class nVidia Quadro OpenGL graphic card connected to a 1080p LED backlit 22” monitor. All workstations contain the same software image installed with Windows 7 Ultimate 64-bit operating system and the latest versions of Microsoft Office 2010, Autodesk Architecture 2013, Revit Architecture 2013, 3DS Max Design 2013, Adobe Creative Suite 6, ESRI ArcGIS 10, Rhino3D v4, and SketchUp Pro 8. A portion of lab computers are updated yearly, and the replaced computers get moved to a small render farm closet which supports network rendering features of Autodesk 3DS Max Design. There are about 30 computers in the farm which students use to offload processing and compose videos of virtual design projects and high-quality renderings. There are (2) HP Enterprise m601dtn LaserJet printers, one Canon large-format color inkjet printer, and (3) 44” HP DesignJet z6100 plotters available for student use and another (2) HP Enterprise m601dtn LaserJet printers, one Canon large-format color inkjet, and a Sharp copier primarily for faculty use. The printers and plotters are available to students and faculty 24 hours a day 7 days a week. Students are required to provide their own paper rolls for use in the plotters and the college provides ink, toner, and letter-sized paper. There are (3) scanning workstations available for student use 24 hours a day 7 days a week. One is an Epson GT-15000 large-format professional flatbed scanner and the other (2) are Epson V200 letter-sized flatbed scanners (with slide transparency option). In addition, there are (2) video capture devices


September 2012

22

supporting both analog and digital video streams connected to DVD/VCR players/recorders for video editing. Faculty have access to another workstation with a Epson V200 letter-sized flatbed scanner in addition to a Xerox DocuMate 152 document scanner.

The computer lab, (2) lecture rooms, a conference room, and (2) additional classrooms have fixed projection equipment and screens installed. Students have access to the rooms if no classes are in session. In addition, there are (4) projectors and (4) Windows laptops available for checkout to use with presentations.

The college shop contains many wood and metal working machinery and also a Universal Laser Systems ILS12.150 laser cutter and engraving system connected to a workstation computer. The shop has extended hours during each weekday and is managed by a shop technician at all times. It is open on weekends as needed for certain student projects. The college also has an agreement with a local fabrication shop in Salt Lake City for student access to additional equipment used to fabricate physical models from digital designs. The college has provided a workstation computer with RhinoCAM software to interface with CAD/CAM equipment. At present, the College and the SoA are developing resources to procure a robotic arm for the fabrication facilty.

There is a full-time Network Manager and full-time assistant computer technician available for computer and network support.

I.2.4. Financial Resources The University of Utah is a relatively healthy public institution. Although there were budget cuts in 2009 and 2010, they were not severe enough to have a significant impact on the School of Architecture, which lost one staff position but sustained no salary cuts. The budget has recovered since that time. The expense and income figures in the Instructional Budget in Table 4 are net of the salaries for the design faculty, dean, the former dean and buyouts for faculty who are in university administrative positions. There is some variation in how things are accounted for from year to year. In 2008, for example, the College paid for all non-personnel expenses of all departments. A detail of all expenses and income to date in 2012-13 will be available in the team room. At the present time, the State of Utah is in excellent financial shape and we expect no additional cuts to higher education over the next year or two. In fact we are planning for modest increases. The SoA benefits significantly from the ability to charge differential tuition, which this year is $137 per credit hour for graduate students. This source of income passes directly to the School and has been a major reason that we have stayed financially healthy. This does create a burden on graduate students however, including the differential and all fees, graduate tuition is $5,523 per semester for in-state students. This compares very favorably with our peer institutions and regional competitors. (Arizona State, for example, is $7,864 per semester, while University of Oregon is $3,840 per quarter). The instructional budget includes income from tuition, state support, fees, and the like. It does not include donations, research income, and other sources outside the University. Recently, ITAC has been generating about $100,000 a year in contract income that primarily flows to research assistants and summer faculty salary. The School receives donations and income from endowments, primarily for student scholarships. None of these have a significant impact on the operating budget. In the short term, the most significant financial concern is the transition of the DesignBuild Bluff program back into the SoA. The Bluff program has been previously run by its founder, Hank Louis, as a relatively independent 501c3, to which the SoA and the participating students paid a fee. The new annual budget of Bluff is estimated at $335,000, offset by $120,000 in income from the University of Colorado Denver, who also run a design build program at the facility. Additional income must come from donations, departmental contributions, student feels and grants. Undertaking this is a risk, but the program is really one of the defining features of our School and students are often drawn here because of their interest in it. This coming year will be a test of our ability to manage this program financially.


September 2012

23

Table 4.Instructional Budget, School of Architecture.

actual actual actual actual BUDGET

projected

projectd

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Sources

Base budget 1,084,535 1,109,134 995,526 1,021,513 1,023,408 1,113,142 1,191,142

New lines - - - - 75,000 75,000 -

Additions or cuts 24,599 (82,500) - 35,895 14,734 - 29,779

Promotions funding

6000 0 9,000 - 3,000 -

NEW BASE 1,109,134 1,032,634 995,026 1,062,408 1,113,142 1,191,142 1,220,921

Differential tuition 108000 260,000 280,000 281,000 279,000 295,740 310,527

Productivity 9593 17,000 22,800 96,000 81,000 81,000 85,000

Program fees 46000 65,000 65,000 45,000 45,000 90,000 90,000

Recurring Soft 0 0 33,000 38,000 68,825 70,890 72,662

Transfers 34176 29,229 72,580 116,436 87,891 70,000 73,000

All other 35,750 29,750 52,500 42,000 98,581 55,000 55,000

Total non-base 233,519 400,979 525,880 618,436 660,297 662,630 686,189

TOTAL income 1,342,653 1,433,613 1,520,906 1,689,968 1,773,439 1,853,772 1,907,110

Bluff Net (Cost) 37,500 - - (15,000) (45,000) (30,000)

Carry over 25,000 93,000 2,500 71,560 75,000 75,508 101,397

TOTAL Expendable

1,405,153 1,526,613 1,523,406 1,746,528 1,848,439 1,929,280 2,008,507

Uses of Funds

ARCH FT FACULTY

810,424 880,078 863,627 937,023 901,585 928,633 951,848

ARCH Clinical 0 0 0 0 144,250 219,250 224,731

ARCH ADJUNCTS

211,442 287,009 330,194 307,000 302,673 300,000 300,000

ARCH TA 34,000 60,000 60,000 62,700 77,000 80,000 82,000

ARCH STAFF 48,717 134,410 136,431 136,431 108,329 110,000 112,750

Arch non-personnel

0 75,000 110,000 185,000 201,094 150,000 150,000

Early retire 0 10,500 50,046 50,046 38,000 40,000 42,000

TOTAL USES 1,104,583 1,446,997 1,550,298 1,678,200 1,772,931 1,827,883 1,863,330

Carry over 93,000 2,500 71,550 75,000 75,508 101,397 145,177

Source: Dean’s Office, College of Architecture + Planning


September 2012

24

For the first time in several years, the SoA received a new line for 2012-13. This was in partial recognition of the need to replace the efforts of many faculty drawn away for administrative positions in the University, and partially as a replacement for former dean Miller, who retired last year but whose salary was part of the central budget, not SoA. In the next year, in preparation for the take over of the Bluff program, we will be seeking permanent funding for a new line to support design/build. This will likely be a clinical faculty appointment. The data available for per-student expenditure includes all degree programs in each college. Architecture compares well with Business (which has a much higher student –faculty ratio) and is only a little less than Engineering, which is a more salary-intensive operation. The College of Law at the University of Utah is faculty-intensive: there is much higher ratio of faculty to students than at other institutions. Table 5. Comparison of per-student expenditure by College at the University of Utah College 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 % Change Architecture 6,972.41 8,694.28 10,740.89 9,692.64 39.01% Business 7,001.68 5,803.77 7,278.58 8,034.29 14.75% Engineering 12,769.35 11,997.60 12,575.50 11,333.29 -11.25% Law 18,520.22 19,011.76 11,293.76 22,260.25 20.19%

Source: Office of Budget and Institutional Analysis, University of Utah Due as much to the misfortunes of others as to significant increases here, the faculty at the School have achieved near parity with other public universities that offer architecture programs. The only important distinction is the disparity for full professors. The salaries of the most senior faculty are somewhat compressed. (Average figures do not include Scheer, Bradley, and Agutter) Table 6 Comparison of Salaries of Professors of various Ranks

Average Salary School of Architecture (2011)

University of Utah Average (2011-2012)

ACSA Public Schools 2010

Assistant Professor $65,800 $78,062 $58,969

Associate Professor $80,800 $85,135 $72,292

Professor $87,000 $120,822 $91,738

Source: College of Architecture + Planning, University of Utah, and the ACSA Report on Accreditation I.2.5. Information Resources The Katherine W. Dumke Fine Arts and Architecture Library Fine in the Marriott Library has the primary responsibility for library resources and services to support the College of Architecture + Planning. The collections in all formats have been built with care over many years to support the research and teaching needs of the program. The slide and image collection has been moved out of the AAC to the Marriott Library as has its curator. As requirements develop and change, the library has shown commitment to responding with resources and services to support the mission, goals and curriculum of the School and College. In 2009 the Marriott Library was significantly remodeled with new rooms, digital labs and an automated book retrieval storage system. The last few years have continued as an era of tight budgets and inadequate growth in acquisitions dollars. Marriott Library has been able to sustain a steady level of subscriptions to architecture and planning journals, however, despite overall limited serial funds in an inflationary journal subscription climate. Indexes include Avery Index to Architectural Periodicals, Art Abstracts and Bibliography of Art History, all available in electronic versions on the library’s web site. The library subscribes to nearly 100% of the titles in Architectural Index and Art Abstracts. With the greater reliance by students on digital sources tor images and research it has become more difficult to get students to take advantage of the library’s resources.


September 2012

25

Architecture subject coverage, retrospective and current, is very good. The library’s architecture collection is at the advanced study level as described by David L. Perkins in Guidelines for Collection Development (1979, p.4). Holdings include about 60% of the titles listed in Architecture, a Bibliographic Guide to Basic Reference Works, Histories and Handbooks. There is a wide range of basic and secondary monographs. Faculty requests are always honored and faculty subject specialties are specifically collected. The number of volumes is nearly 40,000, which includes NA and TH classifications. The serials collection of 43 titles in the NA classification totals over 2,500 volumes. Additionally, unique blueprints, drawings and manuscript collections of local architects are available in the Marriott Library Special Collections Department. The full-time staff is knowledgeable about a wide range of library resources in architecture and related fields. Reference collections in print and electronic formats are readily available. Users can take advantage of electronic reference service through the Web and one-on-one or small group research consultations with librarians and staff. In 2001 the Katherine W. Dumke Fine Arts and Architecture Library was opened within the Marriott Library. This facility well meets the needs of Architecture faculty and students. The topical section of the library covers 7,900 square feet with a maximum occupancy of 157. It includes study space with appropriate furniture and computing access with network connections, and a classroom that allows for flexible seating and table arrangements as well as state-of-the-art computer projection equipment. Recent, nation-wide cuts in higher education have forced the J. Willard Marriott Library to adjust how it collects scholarly resources for every department, including Architecture + Planning. The new, patron-driven strategy places an emphasis on purchasing materials that will be used by faculty and students, and de-emphasizes the “purchase everything” approach. Extensive outreach by subject librarians and a strong acquisitions team ensure that patrons have access to the materials that they need, when they need them. The nature of this new model requires acquisition monies to be more centralized than before. Therefore, a set budget does not exist for any academic department. Instead, there is a shared pool of funds for many different departments to draw from. Selectors for each department can use these funds to purchase items based upon patron requests or their own professional expertise. In addition, the Marriott Library has a wide-reaching approval plan for Architecture materials with Yankee Book Peddler, which automatically selects essential titles in the discipline for purchase. Separate funds and endowments are also set aside for database access, journal subscriptions, and rare books This dynamic model of collection development makes the best use of limited funds and advancing technologies. Most items that are requested can be ordered, delivered, and placed on the shelves in a matter of days. Electronic versions of materials are preferentially selected and can be made available almost immediately upon request. An active Interlibrary Loan department ensures that patrons have access to rare materials that the library cannot purchase, and sends out many items from our own extensive collections. The results of this strategy have been positive. The Architecture collection continues to grow, and the influence of faculty, students, and staff ensure the use of the collection as well as its diversity. Collaboration between faculty members and librarians has created greater understanding and more efficient use of funds and resources. In short, the Marriott Library continues to be committed to and capable of providing access to all of the resources that are necessary for architecture students and faculty to be outstanding contributors to their profession. The College Visual Resource Library located in the Marriott Library is also an information resource for College students and faculty. The area consists of a reading area and slide library, containing selected reference material, master's projects books, reports, and other information resources. The library also holds the collection of sketchbooks from the recipients of the Roger Bailey Traveling Fellowship, the Bailey archive of drawings and “Miss Helen” Snow Kimball Traveling Fellowship in its archive/rare collections department.


September 2012

26

Table 7 Library Statistics Report

The slide library maintains a collection of approximately 40,000 slides in addition to faculty specialty collections. It also contains over 120 videos and CD ROMs and is staffed by a part time library collection specialist and several work-study students. The resource specialist heavily contributes to the development of web supported instruction throughout the School including class website management. She is presently involved in the process of digitizing the core of the collection with over 5,000 images ready to be placed on a website for faculty use. An online database has also been developed for accessing this digitized collection.

Type of Collection Number of Resources Budget Last Year Books 29,612 vols.; 267 online Approval Plan: $9,188* NA, 720's and select HT's Periodical Subscriptions 427 subscriptions; 373 online; $12,464 Print Journals;

4,524 print vols.; 13,000 online $8,464 Ejournal

Microform 350 Digital Collection Images 21,919 Videos 441 Databases 12 Architecture Specific: $58,725;

Related: $220,043

Projects in Institutional Repository 115 Total 69,961 NA

STAFFING: Marriott (Dumke) Library Types of Positions (FTE's) Year Before

Last (FTE's) Last Year (FTE's) This Year

Librarians (Degreed) 3 3 3 (adjunct Librarians) 2 2 2


September 2012

27

I.3.1. Statistical Reports

Table 8 Comparative Data for M.Arch students 2007 University University Ethnicity M F total grad ALL American Indian or Alaska Native 0 0 0 Asian or Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander 0 1 1 Black or African American 0 0 0 Hispanic/Latino 1 1 2 White 46 15 61 Two or more races 0 0 0 Non resident alien 4 4 8 Race and Ethnicity unknown 4 3 7 TOTAL 55 24 79 Percent female 30% 44% 45% percent all minorities (not international) 4% 8.30% 11.30%

2011 University University Ethnicity M F total grad ALL American Indian or Alaska Native 0 0 0 Asian or Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander 0 3 3 Black or African American 0 0 0 Hispanic/Latino 1 1 2 White 54 19 73 Two or more races 0 2 2 Non resident alien 4 3 7 Race and Ethnicity unknown 0 0 0 TOTAL 59 28 87 percent female 32% 44% 44% percent all minorities (not international) 8% 10% 13.40% source: Office of Budget and Analysis, University of Utah

Table 9 Student Applications and Admissions 2009 Applications Admitted Accepted Avg. GPA 3+ 21 8 12 3.39

2 Year 70 41 53 3.376 2011 Applications Admitted Accepted Avg. GPA 3+ 35 10 19 3.31

2 Year 41 27 36 3.16


September 2012

28

Table 10 Time to Graduation

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Normal 150% Normal 150% Normal 150% Normal 150% Normal 150%

3+ Students MARCH

73% 20% 100% 0 75% 0 93% 0 89% 0

2 Yr. Grad.

MARCH 91% 4.5% 89% 11% 88% 8 96% 0 98% 0

Table 11 Tenured and tenure-track Faculty Complement

2006 * Tenured Tenured TT TT TOTAL

% of ALL

Ethnicity M F M F American Indian or Alaska Native 0 0 0 0 0 0.0% Asian or Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander 0 0 0 0 0 0.0% Black or African American 0 0 0 1 1 7.1% Hispanic/Latino 2 0 0 0 2 14.3% White 5 2 2 2 11 78.6% Two or more races 0 0 0 0 0 0.0% Non resident alien 0 0 0 0 0 0.0% Race and Ethnicity unknown 0 0 0 0 0 0.0% TOTAL 7 2 2 3 14 % women 35.7% % all minority 21.4% 2012

Tenured Tenured TT TT TOTAL % of ALL

Ethnicity M F M F American Indian or Alaska Native 0 0 0 0 0 Asian or Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander 0 0 0 1 1 Black or African American 0 1 0 0 1 Hispanic/Latino 1 0 0 0 1 White 5 4 3 1 13 Two or more races 0 0 Non resident alien 0 0 Race and Ethnicity unknown 0 0 TOTAL 6 5 3 2 16 % women 43.8% % all minority 18.8%

*APR in 2006 included planning faculty. This report excludes them for comparison.

I.3.2. Annual Reports The annual report information is assembled by the department using the data readily available from the Office of Budget and Institutional Analysis


September 2012

29

I.3.3. Faculty Credentials The faculty credentials may be found in the faculty matrix, as well as the faculty resumes in the supplement.

I.4. Policy Review

1.4.1 Documents available in the Team Room

1. Architecture Program Report and Supplement 2. Enlarged Matrix of Student Performance Criteria 3. Studio Culture Policy (also included in APR supplement) 4. Net Zero Retrofit Facilities Plan 5. Net Zero Retrofit Energy Study 6. School of Architecture Strategic Plan (also included in APR supplement) 7. College of Architecture + Planning Reappointment, Promotion and Tenure Criteria (also included

in the APR supplement 8. Graduate Program Review for the Architecture Program 9. Self Assessment Policies 10. University Personnel and faculty policies 11. Student faculty ratios for undergraduate major and graduate program 12. Square feet per student calculations for studios 13. Square feet per faculty 14. Admissions requirements 15. Advising and admissions policies 16. Digital integration and use policy 17. University regulations on academic integrity

I.4.2 Links to School Policies

Studio Culture Policy http://www.arch.utah.edu/?school_of_architecture%3Estudio_culture_policy_and_procedures Diversity Policy (University) http://www.diversity.utah.edu/ Discrimination and Sexual Harassment Complaint Policy http://www.regulations.utah.edu/humanResources/5-210.html Code of Student Rights and Responsibilities http://www.regulations.utah.edu/academics/6-400.html


September 2012

30


September 2012

31

Part Two (II). Educational Outcomes and Curriculum II.1.1. Student Performance Criteria Master of Architecture (4+2 program) The Master of Architecture program is predicated upon a strong pre-professional degree in architecture. Thus, the four-year pre-professional degree is combined with the two-year professionally accredited degree (4+2.) The master’s degree requires 53 credits. Following the structured core studies required of all students in the undergraduate degree, the graduate curriculum allows the graduate student, within clear guidelines, to tailor a program to their individual interests and intentions. The Master of Architecture curriculum is composed of several study areas. In most subject areas a choice of courses is offered (Table 12). While all courses in a study area provide fundamental study of the methodologies of that area, their variation in focus within the area allows students the opportunity to pursue special interests and support study concentrations within their program. The student selects from these offerings to meet the amount of study required in each of the area. In order to insure that fundamental material continues to be uniformly provided to all students, there are some exceptions to this pattern: Professional Practice, where a year long course of study is required; the Comprehensive Building Design Studio, which all graduate students take in their first semester; and the Final Studio course series required of a final capstone studio. Electives may be drawn from architecture courses that are not part of a required study area, such as courses offered in historic preservation, communications, architectural photography, history and theory, advanced technology, structural typologies as well as any graduate level course offered by the University. The architecture electives may be exchanged for business electives in the dual MBA/M. Arch degree. Courses taken in any of the required study areas that exceed the number of courses required for that area, may also be used as electives. Table 12 Master of ARCH Curriculumn

Area Requirement Select From

Notes

Studio 3 semesters of course work

6005, 6015, 6016 repeatable

First semester 6015 Required

Communications 1 semester of course work

6050, 6051, 6052, 6053, 6054

Structures 1 semester of course work 6300, 6301, 6302, 6303

6301 & 6302 are repeatable if topic changes

Technology 1 semester of course work

6352, 6353, 6360, 6370, 6570

History, Theory & Criticism

2 semesters of course work

6203, 6205, 6212, 6214, 6229(1.5), 6230, 6231*, 6232*, 6233, 6234*, 6235*, 6236, 6237, 6239, ,6261(1.5), 6270, 6271, 6272, 6273, 6275, 6500

6261 & 6271 are repeatable if topic changes

Professional Practice 4 sessions

6700, 6701, 6702, 6720 no options

Proj. Management Law for Arch’ts Client Services Proj. Finance & Leadership

Electives 12 credit hours Computing, Preservation, Photography, etc.


September 2012

32

Students in the 4+2 program, when both the Bachelor of Science and Master of Architecture are considered, spend 60% of their course work in professional studies and 40% of their course work in general and elective course work. Master of Architecture (3+ Program) The 3+ program is designed for those with a baccalaureate degree in a field other than architecture who are seeking to obtain a graduate, professional degree in architecture. The name, 3+, refers to the three years of professional study in architecture plus, depending on the student’s former studies, a varying additional amount of study that might be required to complete prerequisite work. In the University of Utah program, prerequisite work consists of course work in calculus and physics which the student completes prior to admission and, following admission, a summer of intensive study immediately prior to three years of professional study. It is helpful, but not mandatory, for a student to have had some exposure to training in drawing and a general familiarity with digital communications. The beginning intensive summer program contains an introductory studio concerned with issues of design process and elementary architectural problems. Additionally, there is a course which focuses on the development of digital and analog graphic skills and a seminar introducing issues of architectural theory and practice. During the first year following the summer program, the 3+ student takes fundamentally the same series of courses that comprise the senior year of the pre-professional degree. The 3+ students remain as a cohort in the fall design studio and in the spring are fully matriculated with the undergraduate seniors. Upon successful completion of the first year of study, the following two years are the same as the curriculum found in the M. Arch 4+2 program. II.1.2 Student Performance Criteria Matrix The matrixes will be placed in Part Five: Matrixes II.2. Curricular Framework

II.2.1. Regional Accreditation

The University of Utah is accredited by the Northwest Commission on Colleges and Universities. The most recent accreditation letter is in the Supplement to this APR.

II.2.2. Professional Degrees and Curriculum

Master of Architecture 4+2 The Master of Architecture 4+2 program depends on the students having successfully completed an undergraduate degree in architectural studies that satisfies certain student performance criteria, see the SPC Matrix. These students once admitted are required to complete 53 credit hours in four successive semesters. An accelerated program is offered that includes two summer semesters, with some course requirements. Forty-one credit hours are required to be taken within the department while the remaining 12 credit hours may be taken outside of the department provided they are equivalent graduate school credits. The required credits as indicated in the attached chart come from specific curricular areas such as communications, structures, technology, history, theory and criticism, professional practice and studios. There are two specific studios that are required, ARCH 6015 comprehensive studio and ARCH 6971 final studio. These studios are required to be taken in the first and last semesters respectively. The other 10 studio required credits may come from the elective studio or session studio options. See chart in section 2.1.1 A.


September 2012

33

Table 13 Curriculum Flow Chart - All Program Levels

!"#$%&%'#(')$*+%$%$,(-.-)$

/")%0#(1)-0"*)0*2%13-)$1)(%$

2%13-)$1)(%'4*5%'63-1.

7$.-&"*80%9.306

+3:.-1.*;*'"#*<

='41(4(.

>?2?

@'44*A; ?6%-"&*A; @'44*A<* ?6%-"&*A<

2%13*7$.-&"*; 2%13*7$.-&"*< 2%13*7$.-&"*B 2%13*7$.-&"*C

=0DD("-1')-0".*; E(D'"*7-D$".-0". ?-)$*+4'""-"& =0DD("-1')-0".*<

E-.)0%:*; E-.)0%:*< F"G-%0"*?:.)$D. H3$0%:

A')$%-'4.*'"#*=0".)I ?)%(1)(%$.*; ?)%(1)(%$.*< >4#&I*H$13

BJ*A*2%13

?(DD$%*BJI; @'44*BJI< ?6%-"&*BJIB

2%13*?)(#-0*; 2%13*7$.-&"*< 2%13*7$.-&"*B

=0DD("-1')-0".*; ?-)$*+4'""-"& ?)%(1)(%$.*;

H3$0%: E-.)0%:*; E-.)0%:*<

F"G-%0"*?:.)$D. >4#&I*H$13I

A')$%-'4.*'"#*=0".)I** F4$1)-G$

A*2%13*KBJ*'"#*CJ<L*

M$,(-%$#*?$,($"1$

@'44*5; ?6%-"&*5; @'44*5< ?6%-"&*5<

=0D6%$3$".-G$*.)(#-0N*

O*%$,(-%$#*1%$#-).*0%*$4$1)I

F4$1)-G$*7$.-&"*?)(#-0*

O*%$,(-%$#*1%$#-).*0%*

$4$1)I

F4$1)*7$.-&"*?)(#-0*

+%0P6%'1)-1$*;

Q*%$,(-%$#*1%$#-).*

0%*$4$1)I

@-"'4*7$.-&"*?)(#-0*

+%0P6%'1)-1$*<

Q*%$,(-%$#*1%$#-).*

0%*$4$1)I

R0)$S*A*2%13*&%'#*.)(#$").*%$,(-%$#*1%$#-).S*

B*1%$#-).*-"*)$13"040&:N*B*1%$#-).*-"*.)%(1)(%$.N*Q*1%$#-).*-"*3-.)0%:*0%*)3$0%:N*B*1%$#-).*-"*10DD("-1')-0".N*Q*1%$#-).*-"*

6%0P6%'1)-1$N*T*1%$#-).*-"*10D6%$3$".-G$*#$.-&"*.)(#-0N*T*1%$#-).*-"*U-"'4*.)(#-0*'"#*;V*1%$#-).*-"*$4$1)-G$*.)(#-0.I*

;<*$4$1)-G$*)'9$"*-")$%"'4*0%*$W)$%"'4*)0*)3$*?02

!"#$%&"'(")*"+,-./0,+1",2,34"%$/.5,+6" " 78!"#$%&"'8)"+,-./0,+16" " " " 9::"

Master of Architecture 3+ The 3+ track for students is conditional by students completing an undergraduate degree in any major other than architectural studies. Pre-requisite classes in calculus and physics must be completed before the start of the program. These students are admitted in the spring and start their first semester in the summer. The 3+ student will complete 47 credit hours of intense fundamental classes in architectural studies. During these first three semesters their curriculum is predetermined and sequential including 16 credits of studio and 31 credit hours of history, environmental systems, site planning, structures and communications. During these first three semesters the 3+ students complete the SPC required for the undergraduate architectural studies students.


September 2012

34

Table 14 M.Arch 3+ Credits Required Prior to Joining the M.Arch 2yr. Track

Off Campus Facilities Plastik Banana (PB) is a digital fabrication shop with CNC machines and 3D printers. PB provides professional interface support and fabrication services to the architectural profession and building industry. The SoA has outsourced the access to this highly specialized equipment and the logistical training and support to PB. There is a faculty representative who oversees and approves general student access to the facility. The facility is located off campus on Salt Lake City’s West side.

DesignBuildBluff (DBB) is an off-site program with facilities to support the 17 credit hours dedicated to the design build sector of the curriculum. The 5 credit studio ARCH 6018 and advanced technology ARCH 6370 satisfy required credits towards the Masters Degree. The other 9 credits are considered electives applied towards the total degree credits. The DBB maintains a base camp for the remote job sites on the Navajo Indian Reservation in Bluff, Utah, approximately 4 hours from Salt Lake City. During the “build semester” students live and work in Bluff for two weeks at a time then return home for one week before going back to Bluff. Typically, the DBB pre-design class ARCH 6115 is taken in the first semester of the 2 year graduate program followed in the spring by the construction portion of the curriculum. Certificates The SoA offers two certificates within the Masters of Architecture degree. One certificate can be achieved in the Historic Preservation (HP) which requires 15 credit hours focused on the HP discipline. Six of these credits will satisfy required credits in theory and technology for the degree.

The Urban Design (UD) certificate requires 17 credit hours focused upon the UD discipline. Students will take prescribed credits in foundation, methods and studio courses. Of these 17 credits 5 credits satisfy the required elective studio credits towards the degree. For both of these certificates generally students use their elective credit hours in order to gain the certificate. The SoA also supports a joint MBA/M.Arch degree. Students in this program usually spend an extra year gaining the necessary business credits, while using some electives to fulfill the MBA. They must completely fulfill all the required elements of the M.Arch.

1st Summer 1st Fall 1st Spring 2nd Fall

ARCH 6012 (6) Intensive Architectural

Studio

ARCH 6010 (5) Architectural Design

Studio IIIG

ARCH 6011 (5) Architectural Design

Studio IVG

ARCH 6311 (3) Architectural

Structures IG

ARCH 6055 (4) Intensive Architectural

Communications

ARCH 6112 (3) Site Planning G

ARCH 6211 (3) Survey of World Architecture IIG

ARCH 6275 (3) Introduction to Theory

ARCH 6210 (3) Survey of World Architecture IG

ARCH 6310 (3) Architectural Structures

IG

ARCH 6350 (3) Environmental

Controls IG

ARCH 6372 (3) Building Technology in

Architectural Design G

ARCH 6371 (3) Intensive Materials and

Construction G


September 2012

35

II.2.3. Curriculum Review and Development The School of Architecture has a several procedures in place to anticipate that the curriculum is evaluated “with a view toward the advancement of the discipline, and toward ensuring that students are exposed to current issues in practice”:

• Curriculum committee • Professor of Practice/Adjunct Mentorship and Annual Review • Student input • Advisory Board/Executive Committee Input

The curriculum committee reviews the existing curriculum and acts strategically to look at the broader implications of expected learning outcomes as student complete their degrees and enter the profession. The committee is composed of regular and adjunct faculty drawn from all areas of the curriculum who meet as a full committee each month and work collaboratively to anticipate emerging needs of the student, the profession, and the school. The composition of the committee includes several licensed architects who are regular faculty, clinical appointments, and/or adjuncts as well as student representatives from the graduate and undergraduate programs. At the start of each school year, the committee defines a set of goals for that year and ad hoc subcommittees are formed to work on those specific goals. Concurrently, as new curricular teaching opportunities arise, they are brought to the committee and discussed in an open forum. In this manner, the discussions can bring to light synergies and constraints that can be viewed across the curriculum. When sufficient information (e.g., learning outcomes, implementation strategy, and anticipated impact) about a proposed opportunity is formulated, the proposal is then presented to the full School of Architecture faculty in its monthly meeting. The full faculty then discusses the proposal in an open forum and votes on whether to proceed further on implementation, reject it, or refer it back to the curriculum committee for additional refinement. The School of Architecture supports the further connections to emerging issues in the profession through both longer term regular faculty who maintain a professional practice and shorter term adjunct faculty hires who have specific expertise in those emerging areas. In addition to those tenured or tenure-track faculty, the School has clinical Professor of Practice faculty who provide a holistic view of current practice and a cadre of short term (one-year renewable) adjuncts with specialized expertise. The School has a curriculum area coordinator system that enables adjuncts and new faculty to more fully engage with the development of their courses through mentoring from the coordinator. As questions and concerns arise, the adjunct can seek out feedback from the mentor. As part of the retention review process for adjuncts, student course evaluations that are used to assess instructor and course effectiveness provide further feedback to the adjuncts in how to improve the course and their instruction of it. These evaluations, in part, also inform the decision as to whether to rehire an adjunct. A key aspect for the curriculum committee has been the input from the student representatives which allows the committee to understand how the curriculum and the expected learning outcomes are perceived by the students. This feedback from the assign student representatives and informal groups of students expressing their concerns enable the committee to gauge future interests and curricular directions from the students’ perspective. The chair of the department conducts both anecdotal and quantity based surveys at the end of each year with all graduating students. The faculty as a whole reviews students work across the curriculum as well at the end of each year. The information culled from these processes is used to inform the agenda for the curriculum committee’s subsequent years agenda. Lastly, the College Advisory Board and the Executive Committee provide an ongoing source to gauge the near term and long term direction of the School and, by extension, the curriculum. Altogether, these venues for discussion create the necessary mechanisms to accommodate the diverse aspects of the curriculum and ensure the ability of the School to meet the needs to integrate emerging issues in the profession into the pedagogical goals of the School.


September 2012

36

II.3. Evaluation of Preparatory/Pre-professional Education See section 1.3.1 for typical admissions evaluation chart. See section 1.2.1 for expanded description of the admissions evaluation process for internal and external students.

II.4. Public Information

II.4.1. Statement on NAAB-Accredited Degrees http://www.arch.utah.edu/?school_of_architecture%3Eaccreditation_and_licensure%3E%3Ecurrent_students/school_of_architecture_accreditation/content.html II.4.2. Access to NAAB Conditions and Procedures http://www.naab.org/accreditation II.4.3. Access to Career Development Information http://www.arch.utah.edu/?school_of_architecture%3Eaccreditation_and_licensure%3E%3Ecurrent_students/school_of_architecture_accreditation/content.html II.4.4. Public Access to APRs and VTRs Architecture Program Report 2007 Visiting Team Report 2007

II.4.5. ARE Pass Rates http://ncarb.org/ARE/ARE-Pass-Rates/Pass-Rates-by-School/2011-v4.aspx


September 2012

37

This page is left blank intentionally.


September 2012

38

Part Three. Progress Since Last Site Visit 1. Summary of Responses to the Team Findings [2007]

A. Responses to Conditions Not Met

13.23 Life-Safety, “Understanding of the basic principles of life safety systems with an emphasis on egress”.

Our last narrative response (2008) indicated that the life-safety egress concerns would be satisfied in our determinants class. These classes were discontinued in 2009 due to its ineffective outcomes especially in terms so their effect on studio. In 2010 we changed the sequence of our comprehensive studio to occur in the first semester of the graduate school. The studio will consistently require IBC code analysis for occupancy, fire exiting, ADA issues, type of construction and component fire ratings. The comprehensive studio Arch 6015 that was completed Fall semester 2011 addresses these conditions.

13.23 Building Systems Integration “Ability to assess, select and conceptually integrate structural systems, building envelope systems, environmental systems, life-safety systems and building service systems into building design.”

The satisfaction of this unmet condition is accomplished in the revised and more regulated outcomes of the comprehensive studio Arch 6015 that is a required studio of all M Arch. Candidates. The problem statement for this studio is purposefully simplified to buildings such as a homeless shelter, observatory or small clinic in order to afford the level of project development that can include the integration of building systems. Again Arch 6015 is a required credit for all graduating M. Arch students.

13.26 Technical Documentation “Ability to make technical precise drawings and write outline specifications for a proposed design.”

Technical drawing methods is taught at the undergraduate level in Arch 3050 Communications class that is a required credit for the Bachelor of Science in Architectural Studies degree. At the graduate level outline specifications and interpreting construction drawings is included in the Arch 6054 Construction Documents class as well as the required ARCH 6015 comprehensive studio. The understanding of detailed drawings is typically incorporated in all design studio classes that require demonstration of building component detailing.

13.28 Comprehensive Design “ Ability to produce a comprehensive architectural project based on a building program and site that includes development of programmed spaces demonstrating and understanding of structural and environmental systems, building envelope systems, life safety provisions, wall sections and building assemblies and the principals of sustainability. “

The Comprehensive studio Arch 6015 is currently structured to demonstrate a comprehensive approach to the design problem. The program statements are typically modest in order to afford great problem resolution and systems integration. Each problem is taken from preprogramming client needs assessment to programming, site analysis, schematic and design development to detailing of wall sections and specific details. The outcomes include construction cost estimating, IBC analysis, entitlement review, building systems integration and thermal envelope analysis. This is a required studio for all M.Arch students. The ethics of sustainability has now been embedded into all curriculum with an emphasis on personal behavior as well as design approach. Further Arch 6352 Sustainable Design Studio, provides an elective course where extensive research into the topic can be pursued at the graduate level. This course satisfies the required technology credit for the M Arch degree.


September 2012

39

B. Responses to Causes of Concern

5A. Physical Resources, “ The current building has reached capacity, if additional programs are added to the college, additional space will be required.”

The College is in the middle of a $25 million capital campaign to expand and renovate the building into a net zero facility.

5B. Capital Funds, “The university will require the college to raise 50% of the capital improvement funds. However, the development resources within the college are limited and the college lacks a track record in fund raising. “

The college has established a development officer who works closely with the Dean’s office in conducting an ongoing capital campaign for building improvements, endowed support, annual giving and alumni support.

5C. Faculty Salaries, “Substantial improvements in salaries have been made across the faculty spectrum. However, the statistics indicate that the College of Architecture + Planning salaries lag the national averages; as well as the averages of other colleges within the university.”

Salaries have been relatively stagnant during the economic downturn of the last three years. However with the initiation of differential tuition in 2000 the resources of the school have been more predictable. At the end of the 2010/2011 academic year the university provided the program with a salary equity adjustment that has brought parity within the department. See section I.2.4. Financial Resources for greater comparative detail.

5D. Life-Safety, “The life safety criterion was not met in 2001 and remains unmet in 2007.”

See response under 13.23 above.

2. Summary of Responses to Changes in the NAAB Conditions

In 2010 the graduate school launched an accelerated M.Arch degree program that encompasses the same required credits and curriculum as the conventional track. The accelerated track is complete over four successive semesters, summer, fall, spring and summer. This program grew out of a sustainable behavior initiative to gain greater utilization of the building. In 2011 the SoA initiated an Urban Design certificate. The SoA is continuing to improve curriculum assessment as outlined herein.

.


September 2012

40

This page is left blank