The Organizational Chart

Now that there is a goal, a plan has to be placed for our mythical establishment, in order to be able to achieve that goal.

The plan starts as usual at the top. Who will run the show? Here, we go back to numbers, how many people are required to run the show? The answer of course depends on the number of people in the establishment itself. So, it could be a simple ratio, of 1 to every 1000 students but that is not how things are run in educational establishments. Instead, the number is counted according to the number of colleges such that a representative of each is present. What then if the representative is unable to attend? Will we allow a substitute? In my opinion, one should allow a substitute but restrict the number of times this is possible to protect the system from abuse. Substitutes, would be trainees, in a sense, to eventually know how things are run, and perhaps they would not be allowed to vote if they are present.

Another issue is who will be represented? What groups; and here we may recall the three main categories; Academics, Admin staff, and students. It would not be fair that only one group is allowed to take part in critical decisions without allowing the other two a voice in the matter. The issue is that we sometimes find positions that should be purely admin occupied by academics. One example perhaps is that in some universities there are registration officers while in others deans. This requires investigation but for the concerns of our mythical university, I would rather have officers who can attend the regular meetings. Admin and finance, additionally requires admin representation attending the meetings because all the staff performing this job are essentially admin.

This is not bad, because it actually gives a glimmer of hope and ambition to those who belong to either one of the two groups to rise in the ranks by their own merit and reach that influential position. This would not be the case if we didn't do this in our mythical case.

As an educator, I find it extremely hard, not to listen to the voice of students. They cannot be granted the right to vote as they are not mature enough to do so, but this does not mean that they cannot attend any sessions that may affect them and complain if the recommendation is likely to cause them harm. The presence of a representative, in essence, is to highlight any potential problems that may have been overlooked by admin and/or academics that students will suffer from if the decision is passed. It is always good to listen, before a decision is made, rather than after it is taken.

Another issue of crucial important is to draw precise restrictions of authority for all those involved. Printed matter is best, in a form of a handbook, of what can and cannot be considered as a potential suggestion that may be made. This is simple, considering that we have already set our overall goal. Every suggestion that cannot be shown to help acheive that goal is never suggested during any meeting. Any suggestion that is presented must be justified with a background study that presents evidents supporting the claim that it will help improve the status quo. This will help the meetings focus on what is really important, which is discussing the suggestions that are likely to produce an impact, in addition to discussing evaluations of decisions taken in the past. Projects therefore will undergo an evaluation of impact, prior to, during and following their deployment to assess if the actual impact is acceptable. This information will then be used to suggest and assess future projects.

Meeting therefore will be composed of three main parts; presentation of status quo, calendar events and new projects and suggestions. Presentation of status quo, implies that every dean will present the various metrics for that particular deanship, e.g. the GRE numbers achieved for that deanship, number of students, mean grade distribution (to ensure instructors conform to it), and a report about any projects underway for that deanship. Calendar events implies that the meetings will review on specific dates, specific items that are repeated yearly like the academic calendar, average instructor course load, etc. Dates will be allocated to the various functions such that they are spread out evenly over the year. Decisions are only taken after review of prior similar events and the consequences of the decisions taken on previous years. New projects and suggestions are then considered as compared to how influential they are likely to be in raising the level of the graduating students to the International GRE level. Any suggestion that does not influence this outcome either directly or indirectly is not considered.