CUNY COMMITTEE FOR

DOCTORAL EDUCATION IN THE SCIENCES

FINAL REPORT

May 27, 1999

FINAL REPORT SUMMARY

On May 27, 1999, the Committee for Doctoral Education in the Sciences approved this Report, which provides its considered opinion regarding additional support necessary and appropriate to build upon the infrastructure of doctoral education in the sciences and engineering at CUNY. This support will provide ongoing resources needed to deliver advanced training and excellence in the sciences and engineering important to New York's growing technological base.

The Committee has used the SUNY funding for University Centers as an appropriate example for New York State support of public doctoral education. It found that the budget for "participating colleges" in the CUNY doctoral consortium would be 50 percent greater if funded on this basis. This increment in funding to the CUNY participating colleges according to the New York State model equals over $350M per year. The additional capital spending of $31M, and the annual support of $31M, as recommended by the Committee, is a modest fraction of this amount. The Committee is concerned that without this commitment there will be serious decay of doctoral education in the sciences and engineering at CUNY, which will have a deleterious effect on undergraduate education in the sciences at CUNY and on the New York technological community as well.

Background concerning the consortial system of doctoral education at CUNY and justification for additional support and its distribution are covered in the first section of the Report under 1. Background. More specific details concerning the basis of the Committee's recommendations are found in the body of the Report under 2. Areas of Needed Support for which subtopics are listed in the Table of Contents. Those familiar with the CUNY doctoral consortium will find a summary of budget recommendations under 3. Budget Summary and are also encouraged to review the Committee's closing remarks under 4. Concluding Observations. Major points addressed include:

• expanded mechanisms for support of doctoral students in science and engineering.
• tuition remission for doctoral students who teach at CUNY.
• funding in a manner more consistent with the SUNY University Center concept.
• aggressive recruitment and replenishment of 160 faculty over a five-year period.
• differential teaching loads for faculty consistent with current national standards.
• improved informational and computational resources.
• expanded infrastructure and supporting personnel.
• meaningful recognition of participating colleges with the CUNY doctoral consortium.

Given the necessary level of support and the time to do the work, the Committee is confident in the ability of the CUNY doctoral faculty and students in the sciences and engineering to compete successfully for external support while maintaining the highest standards of academic program and research expected of a major university. We believe these recommendations serve as a template for building on resources available through the CUNY doctoral consortium to provide a purposeful step into the next millennium for CUNY and for public higher education in New York State.

-- CUNY Committee for Doctoral Education in the Sciences

CUNY COMMITTEE FOR

DOCTORAL EDUCATION IN THE SCIENCES

FINAL REPORT

May 27, 1999

CONTENTS

Final Report Summary i

1. Background 1

1.1. Appropriate Level of Funding 2

1.2. Governing Committee for Allocation of Doctoral Funds 3

1.3. Participating Colleges 4

2. Support Areas 5

2.1. Doctoral Student Support 5

2.1.1. Science Fellows 5

2.1.2. Tithe Funds 6

2.1.3. Tuition Remission 6

1.4. Student Housing 6

2.2. Faculty Recruitment 7

2.2.1. Laboratory Start-Up Costs 7

2.2.2. Laboratory Refurbishment 8

2.2.3. Released Time for Research 9

2.2.4. Augmented Salaries for Outstanding Scientists 9

2.3. Faculty Participation and Retention 9

2.3.1. Allocation System 9

2.3.2. Acknowledgment of Doctoral Faculty Research Responsibilities 10

2.3.3. Augmented Adjunct Salaries for Adjunct Doctoral Faculty 13

2.3.4. Colloquia and Honoraria 13

2.4. Science and Engineering Laboratory Costs 13

2.4.1. Equipment and Instrumentation Funding 14

2.4.2. OTPS Funds 14

2.4.3. Service Contracts 14

2.5. Information Technology /Electronic Access 15

2.6. Computational Resources for Teaching and Research 16

2.6.1. Initial Purchase Information 17

2.6.2. Estimates of Recurring Annual Costs 18

2.7. Supporting Personnel 18

2.7.1. Computer Support Technicians 18

2.7.2. Laboratory Technicians 19

2.7.3. Technical Librarians 19

2.7.4. Postdoctoral Students 19

2.7.5. Visiting Professors 19

3. Budget Summary 20

3.1. Student Support 20

3.2. OTPS 20

3.3. Personnel Costs 20

4. Concluding Observations 21

Appendix A: Committee Members 22

Tables : I. City National Rankings in NIH Research Support For FY 1997 11

II. NY Area University National Rankings for FY 1997 NIH Support 12

III. CUNY National Rankings for FY 1997 NIH Support 12

The Graduate School and University Center

The City University of New York

CUNY Committee for Doctoral Education in the Sciences⁽¹⁾

Funding Needed for the Support of

Doctoral Education in Science and Engineering at CUNY

1. Background

Doctoral education is a fundamental component of The City University of New York as CUNY was established in 1961. In general, for those doctoral programs in areas of science and engineering, the laboratory/research component of the programs is focused at the participating senior colleges rather than at The Graduate School and University Center (GSUC). Consequently, a substantial share of the cost of doctoral education is borne by these "participating colleges" (see section 1.3 for a discussion of "substantially participating"), although these costs are not necessarily recognized as line items in operating budgets. Looking at the OTPS and financial aid budgets provided on a disciplinary basis via the GSUC and the allocation system by which participating colleges are compensated to some extent for the doctoral program contact hours of their faculty, it is clear that these funds are not sufficient to support these doctoral programs (Biochemistry, Biology, Chemistry, Computer Science, Earth and Environmental Sciences, Engineering, and Physics) at their current levels of excellence.

In March of 1997, the Ad Hoc Working Group on Doctoral Planning and Doctoral Faculty Replenishment submitted its Final Report, which stated "that an alternative model for planning and investment needs to be found for science and engineering doctoral programs, particularly in the light of their significant laboratory and equipment expenses, of their special pattern of student financial aid requirements, and of the fact that they are essentially campus-based and currently do not have access to GSUC central appointment lines." In view of that committee's recommendation, GSUC Provost William P. Kelly established the CUNY Committee for Doctoral Education in the Sciences¹ (referred to here as "the Committee") during the fall term of 1998 to address these issues. In November 1998, the Committee sent out a memorandum to CUNY doctoral faculty, students, and administrators in science, engineering, and mathematics requesting comments on issues and concerns regarding support of doctoral education in these areas. The Committee has reviewed these comments as well as other information available from which it has prepared this Final Report on the funding needed for the support of doctoral education in science and engineering at CUNY.

This Committee has looked at the costs of doctoral education in general in order to identify needed levels of funding to maintain and improve the level of doctoral education as it relates to the programs in the areas of science and engineering that rely heavily on the resources of participating colleges. This includes most of the sciences and engineering (referred to here cumulatively as "the sciences"). The Committee believes that the observations it makes will be relevant to such programs as Mathematics and Speech and Hearing Sciences, which are based primarily at the GSUC even though our report is addressed only to senior colleges that are participating colleges in the CUNY doctoral consortium.

The Committee has focused on the support of doctoral education in the sciences at CUNY at a level appropriate to the academic excellence it expects. It is especially important to note that funds not currently available are not meant to be taken out of existing or future budgets from the colleges nor is it meant to replace components of the budgets already provided to doctoral education by the participating colleges. Instead, we have tried to identify those areas for which some provision is already made by the colleges and suggest the level to which they should be supplemented. Likewise, those funds needed for distribution through the programs in addition to resources already available at the GSUC are not expected to be extracted from the existing GSUC budget but to be supplemental to it. It is important, therefore, to indicate why such additional funding is not only desirable but also appropriate and where the funds should be sought.

1.1. Appropriate Level of Funding

To appreciate the appropriate level of funding for doctoral education at public universities in New York State, one need look no further than the University Center levels of funding in SUNY. At first glance, this appears to be complicated by the lack of a breakdown in budgets for doctoral versus undergraduate programs. Once the University Center concept is accepted in philosophy, however, it is not difficult to determine some quantitative values useful for meaningful approximations. To do this, information provided in the "College and University Revenues and Expenditures, New York State, Fiscal Year Ending 1995" (http://www.higher.nysed.gov/ohpe/oris.htm) were used. The average per full-time equivalent student (FTES) support at the University Centers in the SUNY system was determined by summing their total New York State governmental appropriations ($646,275,000) plus tuition and fees ($210,400,000) and dividing by the total FTES (60,096) at these University Centers to obtain $14,255 per FTES per academic year. Next, the average per full-time equivalent student (FTES) support at the University Colleges in the SUNY system was determined by summing their total New York State governmental appropriations ($397,623,000) plus tuition and fees ($216,662,000) and dividing by the total FTES (66,897) at these colleges to obtain $9,182 per FTES per academic year.

For comparison, the average per full-time equivalent student (FTES) support at the all of the CUNY senior colleges including The Graduate School was determined from the same document by summing their total New York State governmental appropriations ($582,724,000) plus tuition and fees ($332,718,000), subtracting the CUNY central administration cost ($17,000,000) and then dividing by their total FTES (94,064) to obtain $9,551 per FTES per academic year. Thus, the level at which the SUNY University Centers are funded is about 50 percent greater than that at the CUNY senior colleges and the GSUC. Although delivering quality doctoral education, CUNY participating colleges must struggle to do so on a SUNY University College budget. That is, if the CUNY senior colleges and GSUC funding were at the level of the New York State University Center funding, an increase of about 50 percent would be required.

Although included in the figures obtained from the document cited above, some of the CUNY senior colleges (Medgar Evers, New York City Technical, York, and Law) are not participating colleges in the CUNY consortial doctoral programs. Therefore, using the smaller number of $763,689,400 obtained by taking the 1998 fiscal year senior-college budget for CUNY participating colleges only and assuming a 50 percent increase if the University Center model were used for funding, the additional amount necessary for the CUNY budget can be calculated. The amount obtained is $381,844,100, which considerably exceeds the amount needed to provide the additional support identified here as necessary and appropriate for the doctoral education in the sciences at CUNY. In fact, the disparity is so large that it is not likely to be dramatically affected by assumptions made in its calculation. This is an important point because it is consistent with the observation that the consortial system of doctoral education at CUNY is highly cost-effective, avoiding as it does the duplication of staff and resources that would be necessary if each of the participating colleges were to maintain independent doctoral programs instead. It also indicates that this cost-effectiveness will not be changed significantly by increasing the support level as we have recommended. On the other hand, failure to do so will precipitate serious decay of doctoral education in the sciences at CUNY with a deleterious effect on undergraduate education in the sciences at CUNY as well.

The hiring of a faculty member who will be doing grant-supported research is an excellent investment. It can reasonably be expected that the overhead returns and released-time funds generated by the new researchers will substantially offset the annual budget recommended here. The Committee is confident in the ability of the CUNY doctoral faculty in the sciences to compete successfully given the resources and the hours necessary to do the work. These active laboratories will provide the latest equipment and supplies for the quality doctoral education needed as a technological resource in the training of doctoral and undergraduate students. They keep CUNY on the forefront of research and technology while generating overhead income for the university as well. We believe these guidelines serve as a template for building on resources already developed that will lead to an exciting step into the next millennium for CUNY.

The Committee believes that critical resources appropriate to the University Center level of funding of other public doctoral institutions in New York State are necessary and appropriate to the support of doctoral education in the sciences at CUNY. This support must be in addition to the current base budgets and recognized for this purpose. Those portions of this support recognized as the ongoing responsibility of the participating colleges should continue to be distributed to the colleges directly for this purpose as it has been in the past.

1.2. Governing Committee for Allocation of Doctoral Funds

The additional funds moving the doctoral program participating colleges toward University Center levels of support must not be connected to the "allocation system" used for campus compensation for faculty participation. Instead, it is important that implementation of the distribution of these funds be by mutual agreement among the participating colleges, the GSUC and the doctoral programs concerned. The CUNY Bylaws provision for participating college representation on doctoral program Executive Committees provides a model for structuring a committee for this purpose. Each participating college would appoint one representative (i.e., the Provost or an appropriate dean) to the committee, which would also include the Executive Officers of the doctoral programs and the Provost of the GSUC. Since most Executive Officers are from the faculty of participating colleges, they would also appreciate the importance of recognizing campus needs as well as program operating requirements. The committee would budget resources among the colleges and the programs. While a substantial portion of the support would need to be discipline-based to ensure the quality of programs, these funds would in turn be distributed by decision of the program Executive Committees where each participating college has its appointed representative as well. Ultimately, these funds would return to support the colleges, which are consortium participants in any case. It would be the responsibility of the GSUC to make a timely report of the ultimate destination of these funds to the appropriate representative of the administration at the participating college.

1.3. Participating Colleges

Although the basis for participating college status in the CUNY doctoral program consortium is clearly defined in the CUNY Board of Trustees Bylaws on the basis of the level of faculty participation from a particular senior college, the identification of the colleges as having doctoral programs is not generally well understood. Basically, any CUNY senior college substantially participating in one of the GSUC doctoral programs is entitled to representation on that program's governing body (the Executive Committee); Section 9.4.c. of the Board's Bylaws states that "substantially participating" shall be defined as having six members on the faculty of the program. Therefore it is clear that such senior colleges do participate in the doctoral programs; this Committee believes it is important to recognize this fact as we present ourselves to the public and expect this recognition from the public. This is important to the way in which our senior colleges are viewed nationally just as it is to the way in which our doctoral students are viewed by the senior colleges. Just as doctoral faculty from a participating college are regarded as being members of the GSUC faculty, we recommend that doctoral students from the GSUC based at the participating college should be regarded as being members of that college's student body with all the rights and privileges appropriate to that status.

The Committee recommends that participating colleges be encouraged to include an indication of this status on their stationery and appropriate communications to the public just as the colleges are now listed on the GSUC stationery. Both the GSUC and the colleges should make a special effort to include this information on any information released concerning activities of doctoral faculty or doctoral students. A proactive policy should be adopted toward outside rating systems and the media to make sure they are aware of the unique consortium arrangement and include participating colleges as an integral part of the doctoral program at CUNY, which indeed they are. The strength of the consortium will be better recognized by providing a better understanding of its relationships. Note that we have no issue with how these relationships have been established but only with the way in which they are known and acknowledged publicly.

2. Support Areas

The Committee identified seven important areas of support for doctoral programs in the sciences and engineering at CUNY. The general areas include doctoral student support, faculty recruitment, faculty participation and retention, science and engineering laboratory costs, information technology/electronic access, computational resources, and support personnel as described below.

2.1. Doctoral Student Support

Doctoral student support is a critical and central issue to doctoral education in the sciences. It is useful to review how doctoral programs in the experimental sciences operate. Generally, so that a competent student body can be recruited, full support to successful continuing students is guaranteed subject to financial ability. The first two years are usually supported by institution-based mechanisms, such as teaching fellowships, grants in aid, research fellowships, and adjunct funds. During subsequent years, additional sources of support such as external and internal grants to faculty, adjunct teaching, and external grants to the students may also become available. Among the benefits to the University, besides prestige, are the economic benefits of adjunct and fellowship teaching, grant overhead recoveries, profit sharing in successful patented devices, and collaboration with technology corporations. The Committee wishes to emphasize the importance of several areas of doctoral student support and recommend the levels of support necessary and appropriate.

2.1.1. Science Fellows

Perhaps the single most important development in support of doctoral education in the sciences at CUNY was the adoption of the Science Fellows program, which currently guarantees $18,000 per year per entering student for the first two years of doctoral education. The program addresses the issues of minimum critical mass of each program's entering class as follows: Biochemistry, 13; Biology, 25; Chemistry, 25; Computer Science, 10; Earth and Environmental Sciences, 3; Engineering, 30; Physics, 20. (Mathematics, Psychology, and Speech and Hearing Sciences, although not covered by this document, were included in this program at the level of 41.) Although the total 126 awards are not yet fully funded, the Science Fellows program has added stability to these doctoral programs and provided necessary support to entering students during the critical first two years during which they are passing qualifying exams and completing courses necessary to prepare them for productive doctoral research. The Committee places highest priority on the continuation of this program. It believes the plan should be fully funded within five years as originally intended and that the funding level should follow the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) determination of doctoral student minimum support in New York City, the basis on which the $18,000 figure was originally determined. The current INS support level is $21,264 for the 1999-2000 academic year, so that $5,224,565 is the total amount required assuming a 5 percent attrition in the number of students in the second year.

2.1.2. Tithe Funds

An allocation of funds for doctoral student support commonly referred to as the "tithe funds" has provided important resources and flexibility for the support of doctoral students. The allocation of these funds from the CUNY Research Foundation budget began in the early 1990s at $400,000 per year. This was increased to $600,000 per year in 1995-96. The funds are returned to the departments participating in doctoral programs and having significant grant activity on a proportionate basis, thereby providing a return for achievement and an incentive for active efforts in seeking and sustaining external research support. The Committee believes this source of support is a valuable means of recognition of research efforts by faculty and doctoral students and should be continued. The amount should continue to increase, and it seems appropriate to establish at this time a form of indexing to revenues generated through research activities at the University. The Committee recommends that the percent of indirect costs received by the Research Foundation represented by $600,000 in 1994-95 be determined and that percentage be used as the basis for determining the amount to be distributed as tithe funds each succeeding year. The current approach to the distribution of these funds as a return for achievement to those departments demonstrating significant grant activity seems reasonable and appropriate.

2.1.3. Tuition Remission

Many of the doctoral students in the sciences teach as adjuncts or teaching assistants at the participating college at which they are based. At most universities, including SUNY campuses, doctoral students teaching there receive some form of tuition remission as members of the adjunct/assistant faculty at the campus. The Committee believes it is proper and appropriate that CUNY adopt a policy of tuition remission for its doctoral students who teach. As a first step, a one-time tuition assistance fund for some doctoral students serving CUNY has been provided by the allocation of $1 million for this purpose during the 1999-2000 academic year. The Committee is heartened that this step has been taken in time to welcome the millennium and endorse this approach in principle. This initiative, however, expires in one year and therefore is not a benefit on which a student can depend. Furthermore, even during next semester, it will not be awarded to all doctoral students who teach. Doctoral students provide a talented and vigorous cadre of adjunct teachers that enrich the academic experience on CUNY campuses for our undergraduate students. It seems inappropriate that a significant portion of the money they earn should be immediately returned as tuition to the same university that paid them for this service. A simple policy of tuition remission for all those doctoral students who teach at CUNY would solve this problem. Furthermore, it would have the benefit of having a built-in inflationary protection since those who choose to dedicate their energies to teaching would not be affected by increases in tuition.

2.1.4. Student Housing

It is customary at most university campuses that some form of housing, often subsidized to some extent with respect to local rentals, is available to doctoral students. This is especially important to entering students who are often unfamiliar with the housing situation in the area and must have housing available at the time they arrive. This is beyond the scope of issues this Committee is prepared to address, but the Committee recognizes this need and urges practical solutions to address the general lack of housing earmarked for CUNY doctoral students, especially during their first years in residence. At least until such time as affordable housing can be provided or tuition remission is introduced, it is recommended that students who teach at CUNY be considered New York State residents for purposes of determining tuition obligations.

2.2. Faculty Recruitment

A major concern is the existence of a structural difficulty in the University that seriously threatens the continued existence of campus-based consortial laboratory science programs. This structural deficiency may be stated simply as follows. Basically, all faculty appointments in campus-based science programs have been made by individual departments of the colleges since the inception of the Ph.D. programs in the mid-1960s. In fact, there has been very little centralized planning for appointments in terms of research areas and impact areas. Until the New York City financial crises beginning around 1975, all branches of the University were expanding as a result of a large increase in student enrollment. This enabled the recruitment of new young faculty with commitments to undergraduate teaching as well as participation in the research and mentoring role appropriate for members of the doctoral faculty. The overwhelming majority of the present doctoral faculty members were appointed during this period. Since about 1975 and particularly in the last decade, as the University has undergone significant budget cuts, the reality for many college administrators has been that the colleges cannot afford the luxury of additional appointments in their experimental science departments because of pressing needs of other departments. The result has been a precipitous decline in doctoral faculty in the experimental sciences in the last 10 years. Indeed, some of the most productive people (in terms of securing external graduate student support) who have not retired have either left the University for greener pastures or have returned to teaching full loads because in some programs the college did not grant sufficient released time to conduct a research program. Despite this, the budgetary restraints experienced by many CUNY colleges have led to a political climate in which few of the above facts are being included in college allocations of new lines. Nevertheless, it is essential to doctoral education in the sciences and engineering to have a vibrant faculty that is able to secure grants and contracts in modern technology in order to sustain the research efforts on the various campuses, to guarantee the future of the programs, and to lighten the burden of these doctoral programs on the individual campuses via grant overhead funds, a portion of which returns to the participating college. The Committee recommends an intensive program of science and engineering faculty renewal. From 30 to 35 faculty per year should be recruited over the period of five years on the basis discussed in the four sections below.

2.2.1. Laboratory Start-Up Costs

As new scientists start their laboratories, start-up funds should emanate simply from a central fund maintained by the GSUC. The funds would be used only for new faculty at the colleges in the following doctoral programs: Biochemistry, Biology, Chemistry, Computer Science, Earth and Environmental Sciences, Engineering, Experimental Psychology, and Physics (and at the GSUC for Speech and Hearing Sciences and Mathematics). Any matching by the college should be optional because matching requirements only complicate the process contrary to the purpose of this proposal: to revitalize our programs quickly with the finest young scientists available in areas chosen for development or strengthening. It has happened often that the bargaining to produce a satisfactory start-up package has taken too long, been inadequate, and scared a talented prospective faculty member away. The funds should be adequate to the goal of providing the new faculty member with a first-class laboratory from which to launch his or her career at CUNY and to assist the faculty member to compete successfully for grants. Recent start-up packages for new faculty have ranged from $75,000 to $420,000, with the average well over $100,000. Most would agree that these are barely competitive in the current market. For example, in the 1998-99 New Hires Survey of the Council of Arts and Sciences, the average start-up packages for new faculty in chemistry were as follows: D-2 ($117,000 - 9 reporting); D-1 ($154,000 - 8 reporting); R-1 ($216,000 - 11 reporting); R-2 ($339,000 - 12 reporting). More specifically, the Ph.D. Program in Chemistry was reviewed by Professors Irving Epstein (Provost and Senior Vice President for Academic Affairs, Brandeis University) and Laren Tolbert (Chair, Chemistry Department, Georgia Institute of Technology) during the Spring 1999 semester. Their report includes the statement, "The current level for start-up funds, which seems to range from $50,000 to $125,000, is probably one-third to one-half of the norm at institutions with which CUNY seeks to compete for faculty."

Generally, a senior researcher would require about $350,000 in equipment costs, in order to provide adequate facilities for the researcher's group, which would include a junior faculty member, a postdoc, and two graduate students. His or her group could be expected initially to generate well over $100,000 per year in grants. A junior faculty member might only require $175,000 to provide equipment for the researcher, an associated postdoc, and a graduate student in order to become competitive in generating and building grant support. In some cases, very little start-up may be needed if a young faculty member is appointed to take over a lab of a retiring experimentalist who works in a modern area of research.

Estimating that about one-third of a grant is overhead returns, in about five years the laboratory would start paying for itself. An annual budget of around $6 million would be required to meet start-up costs for replenishment at the rate of 30-35 experimentalists per year CUNY-wide. At the end of about five years the replenishment rate would be expected to drop to about 10 experimental scientists per year.

2.2.2. Laboratory Refurbishment

Often, a new faculty research lab may require various degrees of refurbishment before it is acceptable. A fund should be available through the GSUC for contributing to this refurbishment when new hires are made. A typical moderately sized lab of 1000 sq. ft. might be refurbished at a cost of $100-150 per sq. ft. or $100,000-150,000. Assuming that lab refurbishment is necessary for about half of the new hires each year, a fund of $2 million per year should be available to contribute to these costs at the individual colleges.

2.2.3. Released Time for Research

In order to start up a laboratory successfully, new faculty should be provided significant released time from teaching in their first year to order new equipment and get their laboratories running and in their second year to prepare grants and write up results determined from preliminary data. From then on it is desirable that the departments grant such released time, but it would also be expected that the faculty member apply for grants that may include additional provision for released time from his or her granting agency. Released time requires adjunct funds which are at a premium on the campuses. Therefore, we recommend that a pool of discretionary funds for adjunct replacement costs of faculty released from teaching be established for reimbursement of the participating college for the replacement costs of new science and engineering faculty released from teaching. For each of the first five years, a budget of $360,000 will be needed. It is important to note that because adjuncts will be hired with the released-time funds, the released time requested by the faculty members on their grants should be at the adjunct hourly rate at the level of their full-time appointment. It is also necessary that the adjunct funds generated return to the faculty members' departments so that their responsibilities can be adequately covered. When successful grants have been awarded and the duration of the award is known, it is encouraged that when possible the adjunct funds be used for teaching assignments for doctoral or postdoctoral students in the faculty members' laboratories to support students contributing to the success of the funded research.

2.2.4. Augmented Salaries for Outstanding Scientists

In certain areas that are desired to develop rapidly, it would be useful to create a University Chair type of position consisting of a salary of $150,000 per year plus an allowable supplement of $100,000. The University Chair's position would be renewable every three years. The University Chairs should be used only for recruitment purposes. This would allow CUNY to go after outstanding scientists who would be able to create and direct new laboratories in important areas of research.. A person of this caliber should be capable of generating significant grants instantly. An effort should be made to attract one such person a year over the ifference may be a significant cause of the disparity in National Research Council rankings⁽²⁾

between the sciences and other doctoral programs in CUNY. The Committee recommends mechanisms to provide for reduced teaching loads among doctoral faculty in the sciences as well. The mechanisms would differ for new and established faculty. A subsidy of new science faculty hires at the colleges should reduce their teaching load substantially. This measure would affect only new faculty, targeting those in most need of release from teaching while they acquire initial grant support for their scholarly work. Limiting the benefit initially at least to new faculty members lessens the financial burden involved.