Some Thoughts on the
Future of Ambler

Our goal is to maximize the reach of the Ambler Campus while providing an excellent education to the substantial pool of students who wish, for whatever reasons, to complete all their undergraduate studies at a suburban location.

Presently, we are well short of achieving this goal.

• We have not reached a fair share of such students.
• We have not provided a complete Ambler-based education to all students who enrolled expecting to earn a degree fully at Ambler.
• We have not provided adequate, seamless administrative support for students at Ambler.

Despite the best of intentions, there is no realistic prospect of achieving our goal without modifying the present "system." Under the present system, the Ambler Dean is without authority commensurate with a Dean’s responsibilities, and Ambler students too often receive less than they reasonably expected from Temple University.

For the sake of our present and future students, and in the face of intense competition from traditional and for-profit universities seeking to reach this substantial suburban student pool, we should promptly enact thoughtful changes for Ambler.

The present structure of Ambler is overwhelmingly and simply a "physical site" or [absentee-type] "landlord" for programs and courses offered by Temple’s other 16 schools and colleges from the Main or Health Sciences Campus. The lone degree-granting exception, the current basis of Ambler College, is Landscape Architecture and Horticulture, which is considered as the 17^th college.

Ambler is not a classical "branch campus," in the Penn State or Pittsburgh sense, but it has some of those elements.

To transform Ambler into a full-fledged, degree-conferring college operating independently of the University’s other 16 existing schools and colleges is not, in my judgment, a practical strategy.

It is not a feasible "solution" even though many thoughtful persons think it’s desirable.

Were Ambler located 40 or 50 miles removed from Philadelphia, such a solution might be tempting. But it’s not. Anyway, we would then be constantly debating and revising the programmatic relationships between the Branch Campus and the Main and Health Sciences Campuses.

The correct model for Ambler is probably between the polar extremes of the present "system" and a branch campus "system," incorporating the best elements of both for Temple. What is also needed is an effective process for future adjustments.

With changing needs of the marketplace and our commitment to preserve Temple’s academic standards, I hope we can begin by agreeing on six basic principles refining the Ambler mission. Eventually, we’ll have to sort out the more difficult "details" that we’ll live with in achieving an appropriate expansion to realize our goal. But first, let’s agree on the guiding principles.

The six principles we propose are these:

• The first principle is that Ambler should have an expanded role as the University’s flagship suburban institution.
• The second principle is that Ambler students, who wish to, should be able to complete their full Temple education at Ambler, and in some additional areas of study than are presently offered, and do so with administrative ease.
• The third principle is that Ambler College should have a "core" of faculty of its own, and that additional faculty should be added on a "rotation" basis.
• The fourth principle is that the Ambler Campus should be home to a unique undergraduate college in defined degree-granting programs approved by established University academic and administrative processes.
• The fifth principle is that in its degree-granting programs, Ambler College must meet the same academic standards as all other undergraduate schools and colleges at Temple University.
• The sixth principle is that the Dean of Ambler must have adequate authority and support to implement her responsibility in delivering administrative services critical to the efficient support of students, faculty and staff at Ambler.

Once a consensus forms around these or similar principles, we can move to consider the more difficult issues. But, in the fast-changing marketplace of higher education in this region, we should reach a consensus soon. Our competitors are not waiting for Temple to get its act together.

As we know, "the devil is in the details."

Ambler has suffered from excessive ambiguity and even incoherence in its mission.

I’ve asked CFO Marty Dorph to sort out the facts so we can appropriately deal with budget items. My own thinking is that we’ll probably need additional budget for Ambler, and at no other entity’s expense. But we should make such investments based on facts and on probable consequences of our decisions, not pure hope.

Working out the "details" will be a challenge for us. For instance, where will be the "home" of Ambler College faculty (are appointment, tenure and assignment to be lodged in a Main or HSC campus College and Department, or at Ambler)? Who will "control" curriculum (who decides what is offered, when and by whom)? Who will have authority over administrative staff (will Facilities Management, Library, Student Affairs personnel "report" to the Dean of Ambler or to a central administrator)? Where will be the "locus" of budget authority? How is a "shared" faculty member’s "cost" to be allocated? Who gets "credit" for students and faculty in programs operated by the Main or HSC colleges at Ambler, at Fort Washington, etc.? and so on.

Ambler has been an after-thought for some of Temple’s schools and colleges.

Depending on the particular program and data concerning Ambler, inconsistent views of the present and future can turn on one’s actual or perceived special interests at this moment.

While reasonable persons with similar goals may differ on how to link guiding principles to specific outcomes, principles can help keep us focused on our goal as we consider alternatives.

We should be committed unconditionally to a high quality education at Ambler, and to the Dean’s accountability and therefore adequate authority for the efficient administrative support of everyone at Ambler.

Speaking personally, my mind is open on all the details.

Beyond the six principles which I’d like us to consider first, I want you to read the discussion paper from Ambler Dean Sophia Wisniewska. At my request, she has prepared a discussion paper reflecting her own hopes and suggestions for Ambler. I’m not endorsing them, but am glad to forward them for discussion.

I asked Deans, Acting Provost Caldwell and CFO Dorph to respond to an earlier Wisniewska draft. They raised important questions, not unlike those raised by faculty members, that we must answer. Sophia’s paper will provoke additional suggestions, criticism, alternative models, and "details" we should consider.

We owe Sophia our gratitude for her courage and forthrightness in presenting her views on an often-avoided subject, and for helping raise the level of University-wide debate.

But first things first. I want us to reach a consensus as expeditiously as possible on the six principles, leaving the "details" and Sophia’s proposal (and those of others) for more extended discussion.

Acting Provost Caldwell will work directly with the Faculty Senate and University Cabinet on the principles, and Sophia, Corrinne and Kyriakos (Kontopoulos) will work with the Faculty Senate on the "details."

We’re in this together. All of us -- students, deans, administrators and, most of all, the faculty -- have a critical role in helping Temple achieve the institutional goal of expanding its reach and preserving the quality of a Temple education, thereby strengthening the entire University in the years ahead.

cc: Strategic Planning Committee of the Board of Trustees