.
.
S.90-27
SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY
MEMORANDUM
To: Prof. L. Salter,
From: C.H.W. Jones, Dean
Acting V.P. Academic
Faculty of Science
Subject:
Physics External Review
Date: February 21, 1990
Please find attached the report of the Physics External Review Committee
and the Department's response.
This review went remarkably smoothly, in part because several members
of the review committee have had considerable experience in conducting
reviews of academic departments and of government laboratories. However, it
is also appropriate to comment that the Department was very well prepared and,
in particular, the planning document and supporting material provided an
excellent basis for the review.
The Department of Physics has, over the last 25 years, concentrated its
appointments and its research efforts in one area, condensed-matter physics
(CMP). The Department has been very successful in this, and the reviewers
conclude that the SFU Physics Department is one of the two leading centres in
this field in Canada and that it enjoys an excellent international reputation. The
reviewers recommend that the present complement of faculty in CMP be
maintained.
However, the reviewers also recommend modest expansion of the
Department (4 new positions over five years) into a secondary area, that of
theoretical particle physics/field theory. This would build on some, current
expertise in the Department and on the University's strong linkages to TRIUMF.
The Department supports this finding.
The committee also recommends, and the Department strongly supports,
that every opportunity should be taken to make "pre-emptive" appointments
mortgaged against future retirements. This will be required to anticipate the very
fierce competition for new faculty over the next 5-10 years, particularly in areas
such as CMP where competition with industry is intense.
The report contains a range of constructive and useful recommendations
concerning the undergraduate and graduate programmes and the Department
will be actively addressing these over the coming months.
C. H. W. Jones
CHWJ:pl
Att.
c.c. M. Plischke
Q
SiMON FRASER UNIVERSITY
MEMORANDUM
To.......
pe. .c.. .$cj.eno.e..........................
pptrnen.....hysic.
Subject..
RRYrUCS. JDF.PARTM.NT
Date.
Febru4ry19,19..
EXTERNAL REVIEW
I enclose the Physics Department's response to the
Report of the External Review Committee. some of the
comments of the Committee deal with the graduate and
undergraduate curriculum. These suggestions will be
discussed by our departmental graduate and undergraduate
curriculum committees and we will respond when their
deliberations are concluded..
I believe
that, in the
meantime, the Report and our response can be sent to
Senate.
MICHAEL PLISCHKE
MP/ML
OF
Enclosure: Report dated
Feb. 19/90
OF SGI
Llj
0PHYSICS DEPARTMENT EXTERNAL REVIEW
Februar
y
19, 1990
Response to the report of the Review Committee
The Physics Department Review Committee has presented a
thoughtful and perceptive analysis of the department and has made
a number of constructive suggestions for future development.
Several of the Committee's recommendations deal with the size and
breadth of the department. We are in agreement with these recom-
mendations and ask that the following action be taken in order to
implement them.
The
Committee
recognizes
that the Department's highly
focussed research expertise in condensed matter physics has
allowed it to build an
international
research reputation
despite
its relatively small size. However, the Department's age profile,
in particular in experimental condensed matter physics, has become
badly skewed and must be corrected as soon as possible.'I'n view
of the importance of this area of physics and in view of the
impending shortage of high quality condensed matter experimenta-
lists in the coming decade, we request a second junior position in
. experimental condensed matter physics at this time and mortages
of
'future replacement positions in each of the next three years.
It
must be emphasized that in this area of physics we are competing
with industry, as well as with other universities, for the best
people.
For example, two of our top four candidates in the
current search had attractive offers from American industrial
laboratories.
The Committee also points out that we must now begin to
diversify our research and graduate teaching base. Along with
condensed matter physics, elementary particle physics is the other
main area of frontier research in physics. This is a research
area in which we have only one active researcher. As recommended
by the Committee, we therefore request the creation of a new
senior faculty position in elementary
particle/field
theory and
three junior positions in this area in the next few years. The
Committee argues strongly against weakening our existing strength
in condensed matter physics and these positions must, therefore,
be expansion positions rather than replacement positions.
/2
0
-2-
We now discuss the Committee's other recommendations.
1. THE UNDERGRADUATE PROGRAM
(a)
Integrated
4-semester course sequence
We agree that there are problems in our first year
courses (120/121). In particular, most faculty who have taught
these courses feel that there is too much material, in the
syllabus.
An integrated four-semester sequence might be
pedagogically attractive but could cause new difficulties, in
particular for Community College transferees. This will be
discussed in depth by the Undergraduate Curriculum Committee
during the next few months and we expect to bring forward a
proposal for some lover-level
,
course revisions by the summer of
1990.
(b)
Methods of Mathematical Physics
Physics 384 (Mathematical Physics) is the single most
important requisite for our fourth year physics courses and some
of our third year courses. In this course students are introduced
to some of the classical methods of applied mathematics in the
context of specific physical problems. The aim of this course is
to teach the student to integrate the basic tools learned in the
prerequisite Mathematics courses and to apply them in a systematic
way to physics. We point out that such a course is the rule
rather than the exception in North America. In particular, one of
the members of the Review Committee (Baker) has been largely
responsible for the development of the parallel course at the
University. of Washington.
(C)
Updating of Under
graduate
Laboratories
The department has plans to update the undergraduate
laboratories and has consistently requested capital funds for this
purpose.
(d) Miscellaneous
(i)
We agree that rotation of teaching
assignments
is
appropriate.
(ii)
All basic courses do have . well-defined syllabi. A
suitable text will be identified for Phys 384.
.
-3-
(iii)
The Physics Department is responsible for NUSC 485
which is offered every spring. The comment in the
review presumably refers to NUSC 442 which was not
offered as a regular lecture course in 89-1 when a
single student expressed interest. The student took
the course as a reading course in Chemistry.
(iv)
We do use TRIUMF staff to teach in the department. In
particular,
in 90-1 Dr. B. Jennings is teaching NUSC
485 (Particle Physics). In 89-1 he taught Phys 425,
advanced electromagnetic theory, in which relativity
certainly plays a role. Some of our regular faculty
also do research with
relativistic
particles (Boa],
Viswanathan) and are more than capable of teaching
relativity.
Enrollment
Enrollment in our upper-level courses has been growing,
but, as pointed out by the Review Committee, could be
We hope that a reorganization of the lower-level curricu-
help to attract more students to the Major and Honors
e)
steadily
better.
lum will
programs.
We will also re-examine our recruitment programs and
attempt to make them more effective.
2. THE GRADUATE PROGRAM
1.
Breadth of Program
The Committee's recommendations are consistent with
concerns raised in the Mission Statement of the department and in
the Long Range Planning Document of 1988. We agree that there
should be a more extensive set of graduate courses and, with the
addition of more faculty, this problem should be solved. If there
is a major expansion at TRIUMF if/when KAON is funded, more staff
from that institution should become available for special topics
courses.
0
- 4 -
.
2.
Length of M.Sc. and Ph.D. Programs
Our Graduate Program Committee will examine the
requirements for the M.Sc. degree in detail during the next few
months. The trend in Canada seems to be toward a streamlining of
the M.Sc. program. For example, the University of Toronto and the
University. of Waterloo both offer non-thesis M.Sc. programs. The
University of British Columbia has less stringent research require-
ments than we do. These will be some of the options that we will
consider.
One of the contributing factors to the length of both
M.Sc. and Ph.D. programs
is,
undoubtedly, the heavy teaching load
of those students without scholarships. The Faculty of Science
Task Force on Teaching Assistants has determined that there is
'research
intensive'
Canadiai
university in which graduate
students are allowed to perform as much as 20 hours of work per
week. The range in other universities is from
six
to twelve hours
per week and we also must work toward this as a goal, both to
remain competitive in the recruitment of students and to make the
graduate program more efficient.
3.
Relationship of M.Sc. and Ph.D. Program
The suggestion that the procedure of transfering from
the M.Sc. to the Ph.D. program be streamlined will be discussed
again. The Department recently lowered the requirements for
transfer from the M.Sc. to the Ph.D. program and further changes
may be appropriate.
3. THE RESEARCH PROGRAM
As Simon Fraser University continues to grow, each department
must ask itself whether its size and breadth of research program
is appropriate for a 10,000, 15,000 or 20,000 student university.
Some departments ,have attempted to cover most of the sub-
disciplines within their area and for them, growth simply means
maintaining balance among the different subdisciplines.
The Physics Department, from its beginning, has specialized
in only one of the major research subdisciplines of physics. The
largest frontier research areas in physics are now condensed
matter physics, in which we have considerable strength, and
../5
9
.
-5-
elementary particle physics. We have one theorist and one experi-
mentalist (joint appointment with TRIUMF) working in particle
physics. We have attempted to maintain a teaching capability in
this field through the appointment of Adjunct Professors
from
TRIUMF, but our research program is small.
The Review Committee has recommended that we select ele-
mentary particle/field theory as a new area of research expertise
and that we add at least three or four new faculty members in this
field. We welcome this recommendation and request that we be
given a new senior position in elementary particle or field
theory.
We expect that this established scientist will build up
the research program in this area over the next few years.
4.
DEPARTMENT RESOURCES
1. We are well aware of the age distribution of our
faculty and, once again, request that .a second appointment in
condensed matter experiment be made at this time. We note that
the second candidate recommended for appointment brings the
department expertise in one of the new and exciting areas of
condensed matter physics, as recommended by the Review Committee
in its assessment of the research program.
While the next few scheduled retirements are entirely
in the experimental group, it must a'so be noted that the age
distribution of the condensed matter theory group is also badly
skewed. We must work toward the long-term goal of a balanced age
distribution in all areas and, after some renewal of the experi-
mental group, will wish to search for junior faculty in condensed
matter theory as well.
2.
The technical support staff is excellent but too
small. Although we have recently added a technician, we still do
not have the technical support for the research program that we
had in theearly years of the previous decade.
3.
We have recently hired a full-time Laboratory
Instructor, Dr. Neil Alberding, who has as one of his responsi-
bilities, the rejuvenation of the teaching laboratories. With a
regular infusion of capital we believe that this task can be
accomplished during the next few years.
4.
We agree with the Review Committee's comments on
start-up funds.
.
.
-6-
S
6.
We agree with the Committee's assessment of the labora-
tory space situation.. However, we are confident that two new
experimentalists can be accommodated for a short period in the
existing space.
S.
PLANS AND DIRECTIONS FOR THE FUTURE
We are in full agreement with the point of view expressed in
this section of the Review Document, namely that the Department
continue to grow and to diversify its research capabilities
through additional appointments in elementary particle theory. We
also agree fully with the 'strategic recommendation' made by the
Committee that we make pre-emptive appointments, mortgaged against
future retirements in condensed matter experiment at this time.
Because of our high profile in condensed matter physics, we will,
at the present time, find it relatively easy to interest outstand-
ing young scientists in a faculty position at SFU. However, if we
neglect
to
begin the renewal of the Department at this time, we
will be faced with the prospect of rebuilding in the early years
of the next century a much more difficult and expensive process.
MICHAEL PLISCHKE
Chairman
Department of Physics
MP/ML
C
DEPARTMENT OF PHYSICS
Uciversity of California
Santa Barbara, California 9310C
Tvlrphnnr (90")
a
January 18, 1990
REGE\JED
iM1 2 iO
DEAN O1
OFF JCF
Dr. C. H. Jones, Dean of Science
Department of Physics
Simon Fraser University
Burnaby, British Columbia V5A 1S6
Canada
Dear Dean Jones,
On behalf of the Physics Review Committee I am enclosing our report.
We thank you for the excellent arrangements for our visit. It was a pleasure
meeting with you and other members of the SFU community. As you will read
We
have high expectations for the future of this excellent department.
Si
rely
I
I
C .
CA-/
Walter Kohn
for the Committee
WK:c
enc.
cc: Academic Vice President, L. Salter
0
J
I
January 18, 1990
Report of the Review Committee
Department of Physics
Simon Fraser University
INTRODUCTION
The review took place December 5-6, the first review—we were told—
after more than ten years. The Committee membership consisted of R.
Armstrong, Dean of Arts and Sciences and Professor of Physics, University
of Toronto (experiments on phase transitions and molecular dynamics);. M.
Baker, Professor of Physics, University of Washington, Seattle (elementary
particle theory); R. Donnelly, Professor of Physics, University of Oregon at
Eugene (experimental fluid mechanics, low temperature physics); R. Dynes,
Director of Chemical Physics, Bell Laboratories, Murray Hill, N. J. (con-
densed matter experiment); and W. Kohn, University of California at Santa
Barbara (solid state theory, surfaces). Four of the members have Masters'
degrees from Canadian Universities. Donnelly and Kohn were originally
nuclear physicists.
.
The Department Chairman, Professor M. Plischke and Dean of
Sciences,
S
C. Jones, provided us with excellent descriptive and statistical material
I
n
about the background, current status and future plans of the department.
By consultation between Dean Jones, Chairman Plischke and the Commit-
tee Chair, a very satisfactory agenda was established, including, meetings
with faculty, students and administrators as well as visits to numerous re-
search and teaching laboratories. (Appendix A). A well formulated set of
questions (Appendix B) guided our deliberations. We greatly appreciated
the friendliness and frankness during our meetings.
-
We find that the Department has succeeded in establishing itself as one
of the leaders in Canadian Condensed 'Matter Physics' (CMP) and enjoys
an excellent international name. 'Although the youngest member of the
Department celebrated his 40th birthday during our visit, the spirit of the
Department is impressively 'youthful. All but one member have research
grants and/or industrial support. The level of mutual supportiveness 'in
CMP is very high and a major contributor to the Department's excellence.
Undergraduates made an outstanding impression on us; graduate students,
as agróup, somewhat less
,-
so. By far the greatest number of faculty and
graduate students work in CMP or closely allied areas. There are some
problems with several of the '--4 faculty members outside of CMP. We forsee
an excellent future for the Department which we expect to remain one of
the ornaments of the University.
More detailed
'
analysis and recommendations for the future follow.
2
I. The Undergraduate Program.
. We met with undergraduate students and had a lively and very pos-
itive discussion with them. Their morale was excellent. Several students
had recently met with students from other Canadian universities and had
concluded that their own education was superior. We were struck that all
these students came from the Vancouver metropolitan area. They gave two
clear reasons for coming to SFU: The wide variety of available Physics ma-
jors; and the coop program which offered them industrial experience and
the opportunity to earn money. The students identified very positively with
SFU and its physics department. Almost all had well thoughout plans for
k
their future. We were pleased with the significant percentage of
.
(highly
articulate) women students.
When encouraged by us the students also acquainted us with some
problems in their curriculum. We took these comments into account in the
following assessments and recommendations.
1.
The undergraduate program is very thorough and on the whole very well
taught. There is convincing evidence that the undergraduate students
are very able and received an excellent education.
2.
We support the reorganization of the program currently underway in
the department, particularly with respect to the first two years. We
.
recommend:
KI
A single, integrated 4-semester course sequence, (including modern physics)
during the first two years.
'
A 2-semester sequence in upper division electricity and magnetism at
about the level of Corson and Lorraine.
A 1-semester, upper division course in classical mechanics, including
Lagrangian methods and emphasizing applications.
Consideration should be given to having methods of mathematical physics
taught by mathematics faculty. (Physics faculty needs to be involved
in establishing the syllabus.)
3. The undergraduate laboratory is well organized but needs updating over
the next few years.
4.. Miscellaneous:
In general courses should not be taught more than 3 years in a row by
the same instructor.
All basic courses should have texts and well-defined syllabi.
The nuclear science option is highly regarded. However, problems con-
cerning the availability of one or two low-enrollment courses need at-
tention.
Strong consideration should be given to having relativity taught by
TRIUMF staff who do research with relativistic particles.
4
Concerning enrollment and graduation patterns we offer the following
0
remarks.
5.
We consider the present class of '-'15 per year too small for the size and
quality of the faculty and recommend a target of a 20-30% increase over
the next five years. The Department should actively recruit students
not only inside but also outside the Metropolitan Vancouver area.
6.
The Vice Chancellor expressed concern about non-completion of the
major. We have no statistical information about the first two years
when many students switch departments. However we were told that
—85% of the students declaring a physics major complete the degree.
We consider this very satisfactory.
0
II. The Graduate Program
The Committee had an extended meeting with about 15-20 graduate
students.
We asked them initially why they had come to SFU: the unanimous
answer was the CMP program.
We asked them about support. Apparently all students are adequately
supported by either teaching appointments, research appointments or com-
binations of both. Graduate student teaching is governed by union agree-
ment and involves 20 hours/week including preparation. The Committee
•
noted considerable concern about the heaviness of that load: apparently
5
quite a number spend 4 of their
-
6 years teaching.
The students, on the whole, believe that the MSc program is a good
program but takes too long. Many felt they would like to go directly to the
Ph.D. program, which is in principle possible. The minimum GPA for this
transfer is 3.67 and permission of the student's committee.
With 20 hours of teaching, the students take only two courses at a
time: Quantum Mechanics, Electricity and Magnetism for the first semester,
Statistical Mechanics and Solid State 1 for the second semester. For the
MSc they need 17 hours which usually includes Solid State II and one other
class of choice. For the Ph.D. Quantum Mechanics II, particle physics and
a choice of special topics is required.
The students felt that the core graduate courses are well taught, special
courses less so. They complained that the choice of courses after the core
was too limited. In particular they felt a field theory course should be
available, as should group theory from a solid state viewpoint, and non-
linear optics.
Students felt their relationships with almost all faculty were good and
in fact those relationships constitute one of the motivations to come and
stay at SFU.
Every student now gives a 20 minute seminar every year. This program
-
is very popular and useful.
S
j
a
Committee Comments and Recommendations
0
1. Breadth of Program.
The Committee believes that the curriculum is competently handled,
but is, unfortunately, too limited. Theoretical students especially lack suf-
ficient courses to give them the necessary breadth and depth to supplement
their research and be adequately prepared for their career. We believe there
should be a full year of E & M, and a year of relativistic QM and QFT. Fur-
thermore, there should be more regular offerings of special topics courses
such as group theory and nonlinear optics, as mentioned by the students.
Special lecture courses by faculty from UBC or staff from TRIUMF would
be an important addition to graduate studies at SFU. We recommend that
the Department require each student to take 1 or 2 approved courses in an
area far from his research. A broad range of graduate course offerings will
help significantly in attracting high quality students.
For implications concerning the future size and composition of the fac-
ulty, see Section 4 and 5.
2. Length of MSc and Ph.D. Programs
We consider the average times for the completion of the MSc pro-
gram ('-'3 years) and the Ph.D. program (-"6.2 years) too long for the good
of the students. We recommend that normally financial support be limited
to 2 years for the MSc degree—or possibly 5—and a total of 6 years for the
7
Ph.D. degree.
3.
Relationship of MSc and Ph.D. Programs.
Strong MSc programs are a prominent feature of Canadian graduate
education. Compared to U.S. Master's degrees, which are all too often
consolation prizes, the SFU MSc program is a solid program useful to certain
students, going on to the Ph.D., and particularly useful for those leaving at
the end of the Master's program. MSc theses should however be moderate
in scope and length to make possible the shorter completion time for the
degree. For students destined for the Ph.D., we consider it important to
have a readily available direct access to the PhD program. This will help
shortening the average time taken for the Ph.D.
4.
Student Recruitment
The merits of the SFU graduate program should be more widely known
and an increased effort to recruit, both nationally and internationally (par-
ticularly in the US Pacific Northwest),
i.
s recommended.
5.
Evaluation
In the long run the quality of a graduate program will be reflected by
the number of doctoral graduates who obtain positions in leading research
institutions and their subsequent careers. Research opportunities in con-
densed matter physics (especially experiment) are truly outstanding today
and the Committee looks forward to seeing SFU graduates playing scien-
8
tific leadership roles in the future. The enhanced teaching program and
• new research opportunities afforded by an expanded faculty (see Sec. 5),
combined with more vigorous student recruitment, should help achieve this
important goal.
III. The Research Programs
1. Overall quality as measured by external research grant support, external
recognition and honours, research productivity, etc.
From the Department's beginning the faculty has focused on CMP as
area of specialization and this strategy has served them well. While the
quality of the individual researchers in CMP varies from world competitive
- to average, the heavy focus on condensed matter physics and the strong
interactions amongst the faculty result in a very strong total program, which
gives the university an international reputation: the whole is considerably
stronger than the sum of the parts. It should be regarded with pride that
all of the condensed matter people have operating grants, with the average
well above the national average.
The remaining faculty in other areas of physics, although feeling various
degrees of isolation, have also demonstrated strong research programs and
are well funded from outside grants.
2. Area of strengths and weaknesses in the research program.
CMPclearly is strong. We do not suggest that the department should
.
9
I,
have representation in all areas of physics, but a strengthening through
perhaps two new appointments in high energy theory would greatly add to
the intellectual breadth of the department.
The directions of research in CMP reflect very much the age distribution
of the faculty, where the youngest member is 40 years old. Even in CMP
there are current areas of interest which are not represented at Simon Fraser.
For example, the whole area of quantum transport and mesoscopic systems
is' of strong current interest and' will continue to be for at least the next five
years. CMP is inevitably dependnt upon high quality,—well characterized
materials. It is, in part, the strength of Simon Fraser that it has strong ef-
forts in synthesis of layered chalcogenides and magnetic systems. Another
im
k
ortant
'area of CMP is semiconductor physics which relies heavily on
quality materials. If an appropriate person can be identified, em1conduc-
tox film growth (MBE, LPE or MOCVD) would greatly enhance the breadth
and productivity of the condensed matter physics people. However, such
persons are difficult to find and unless unique circumstances occur which
present the opportunity to hire a strong person in this area, this should not
be pursued. Compromises should not be made here as a rather substantial
investment is necessary for a program of this type. Finally, a carefully cho-
sen experimentalist in the area of macromolecular systems, liquid crystals,
polymers, or liquid instabilities would complement the strong theory group
in this area.
10
S
S
IV. Department Resources
0
1. The age profile is badly skewed, the youngest member being 40 years
old. Five faculty members, all condensed matter experimentalists, reach
the canonical retirement age between 1992 and 1996. This includes A.
S. Arrott who holds the largest NSERC operating grant, and has
re-
ceived significant recognition for his research achievements. We were
told that the Department presently had one slot for a condensed mat-
ter experimentalist; if the opportunity presents itself to make a second
appointment we would hope that the Administration would make the
necessary resources available. (See end of Section 5.)
2.
The administrative and support staff is lean but, from the comments
we heard, seems in general to be adequate. Appreciation was expressed
for the work done by the common Faculty workshop. It was noted that
there are no Departmental charges levied from NSERC grants for tech-
nical or workshop support. This is a desirable situation which should
be maintained.
3.
The undergraduate teaching laboratories are well organized and satis-
factory. A recently organized 4th year computer interface laboratory
was particularly impressive. However, the equipment is in some cases
out of date. A regular infusion of funds for the orderly replacement and
upgrading of laboratory equipment is recommended.
.
11
I
4.
The equipment available for graduate research and more generally for
the research programs of the faculty is of high quality and often state of
the art. In particular, the Surface Physics Laboratory is impressive and
represents a unique faculty in Canada. However, it will be necessary
to provide substantial start-up funds to attract junior faculty. In some
cases sums of $300,000 plus may be necessary in the present competitive
environment.
5.
The computing and library facilities are by and large satisfactory. The
proximity of, and access to the more comprehensive UBC library is a
definite asset. Certain journal subscriptions cancelled during the period
of cutbacks should be reinstated. The mechanics for the purchase of new
books appears to be too slow.
6.
The laboratory space available to individual faculty appears to be am-
pie. Nonetheless, on the short term, there will be a serious problem if
one or more new experimental faculty are recruited before additional
space becomes available with the completion of a new building for the
biological sciences.
V. Plans and' Directions for the Future.
We consider the Department's present very good state to be an excellent
base for its future development: The Department has a broad, strongly in-
terrelated high quality set of activities in condensed matter physics (CMP);
12
a
P
an excellent undergraduate student body; and a substantial number of grad-
uate students (we believe of lower quality) and of postdocs and research
associates. It has indeed succeeded in establishing itself as one of the two
leading Canadian Centers of CMP and has a strong international presence.
The present number ('—'19) of faculty in CMP is comparable with many of
the strongest departments in North America and we see no general need for
a larger number. Of course special circumstances (e.g. the establishment of
an industrially endowed chair) may call for a modest increase. As present
CMP faculty retire in the next few years (-
. -5 before 1996), new appoint-
ments of young CMP faculty should be made, moving into new areas of
opportunity and phasing out some older efforts.
Is continued concentration in CMP wise? We are convinced that it is.
The field exhibits an enormous variety and vitality and is the essential base
for contemporary high technology. It is intellectually challenging and con-
tinues to be the origin of a large fraction of the important new concepts for
physics as a whole (collective phenomena, quantum Hall effect, renormaliza-
tion group, etc.). On the experimental side it offers great scope for physical
irnagnination and creative instrumentation, of which we saw several impor-
tant examples at SFU. It will be important, though, for the department to
move into new subfields of CMP, as opportunities are perceived.
•
Given the anticipated future size of the Department, about 26 FTE's
0
.13
I
within the next 3-5 years, we consider wide diversification-and the con-
comitant absence of critical mass in each area-as clearly undesirable. At
the same time we believe that an essentially one-dimensional Department
(CMP only) is also highly undesirable in depriving both faculty and grad-
uate students of the stimulation and openmindedness provided by more
than one scientific perspective. We therefore strongly recommend that the
department develop one secondar
y
area which-by making use of some com-
mon interests with CMP and with faculty and staff at UBC and TRIUMF;*
would effectively have a critical mass. As one promising possibility for this
secondary area we propose theoretical particle physics/field theory, an idea
which agrees with the present thoughts of several faculty members. Joint
appointments with UBC and/or TRIUMF should be seriously considered-
they might be very helpful in recruiting. We consider a total of 4-5 SFU
FTE's in this area a minimum. The first new appointment should be a
senior appointment, the others junior.
As further means for keeping faculty, research staff and students in touch
with a broader range of scientific developments we suggest that consider-
ation be given to a regular program of Visiting Professors (in-and outside
of CMP), say -'2 semesters per year, who would be asked to giye special
* We are aware that a decision on TRIUMF's possible major transformation
into a proposed KAON factory is pending. We believe that if it goes ahead
it would enormously raise the quality of the overall scientific environment
in British Columbia.
14
0
courses and seminars.
Finally a very important strategic recommendation: The competition,
particularly for good CMP experimentalists, has already become very fierce
over the last 3 or 4 years and reliable projections make it next to certain
that it will become even much fiercer as the retirement wave grows towards
its peak in a few years. Therefore it is essential to make "pre-emptive"
appointments now, mortgaged against future retirements. Failure to do so
might well endanger the long term future of this Department.
Walter Kohn, Chair
For the Committee
• WK:c
.
15
..
•
•
:
.
Dec. 1, 1969
.-,i
.•
--
r
-
PHYSICS
DEPXRT1NT EX'r!PJ(XL
-
December 4-7, 2989
•
-
c'4.
-..•
•
'ABSOLUTELY FINAL SCK!DtTL
.Monday\ ..:
.
iDecem.ber 4
29:30
.
C.d.W. Jones and Review Committee
at ote1
• Tuesday
December 5
7:30
Ccittee, H. Plischke at Hotel
8:45
L.
Salter, C.K.W. Jones (V.P. Academic office)
9:45
Graduate Students; E.D. Crozier,
M. ?lischke for Graduate Curr./Ad.miSS.
10:35
R.P. Zrindt, S.R. Morrison, X. Colbow
21:25
H. Thewalt
11:50
LUNCH (P8445)
13:10
Undergraduate Students; R. Frindt
for UGCC
(P8445)
14:05
J.C. Irwin
14:30
0. Hausser
15:00
COFFEE, Science Chairs
15:45
R.K.
Enns,
K.S.
Viswanathan
16:30
B.P. Clayman, S. Gygax
17:00
B.P. Clayman (Graduate Studies)
17:45
Committee meets in camera
19:00
DINNER (Committee, Plischke, Clayman, Cochran,
Colbow, Croziér, Irwin, Rieckhoff, Visuanathan,
Wortis at Diamond University Club)
21:00
Return to Hotel
-.
All
meetings in Physics Seminar Room (P8445) unless indicated otherwise
1..
'2 -
?*
- '.-
r
VedDesday,
9:00 -...... .:
L.E.
Ballentifle,
G.
Xirczenov
1.40
Boal, )4. P]3Schk., M Wortis
•
Surface Physics
Laboratory
-
-.$.(Arrott, Cochran, Curzon, Heinrich)
LL
'NC (T. W
.
-.
Calvert, Diamond Univ. Club)
:'' •.
-
13 45
Tour of Teaching Laboratories (Frindt)
14:15
1
E D crozier
14:45. •.-.E. Rieckhoff
15:l0--
.
L.H. Palmer
•
•_.
,••
•
15:30
Committee meets in camera
DINNER (Committee)
-
1 . '
.a
•t
-
-
Thursday, •
.
: •
•
-'
December 7
•
Committee meets
at Hotel
•
•
All meetings in
Physics
Seminar
Room (P8445) unless
indicated otherwise
•
o
//
/
-.
.
.---..--------.
/
Physics Review - Terms of Reference
The objective of the review is
to provide a critical and constructive
analysis of the S.F.U. Department of Physics from the following standpoints
1.
The. Undergraduate Programme
a) the appropriateness of
the curriculum
b)
the quality of the programme
C) enrolment patterns and the number of students graduating In Physics.
•-2.
The Graduate Programme
' \ C)
a) requirements for the M.Sc. and Ph.D. degrees
b) the quality of students who graduate
c)
levels of graduate student support and related matters (e.g. time taken. to
graduate).
.
d) enrolment patterns In the M.Sc. and Ph.D. programmes (Canadian vs.
international student enrolments; M.Sc. vs. Ph.D.)
3. The Research Programmes
a)
Overall quality of the faculty as measured by external research grant
support, external recognition and honours, research productivity, etc.
b)
Areas of strength and weakness in the research programmes
1) depth versus breadth
ii) appropriateness or otherwise of current research thrusts.
4. Department Resources
a) Faculty complement; age profile; retirements, etc.
b)
Support staff complement - technical and non-technical
c)
Equipment for undergraduate teaching and graduate teaching and
- research
d) Laboratory facilities
e) Computing and library facilities.
/
I
S. Plans and Directions for the Future•
a)
Concentration In
condensed matter physi
4.
cs vs. diversification
b)
TRIUMF - where does this major facility fit In?
c)
Replacement and new appointments - by area
e) The national and International stature of the Department - how best to
build on and add to the Department's current status.
A report of 8 to 20 typed pages would be appropriate. The Report should be
submitted to the Dean of Science and the Academic Vice-President, who
will, following discussion, release it to the Department. The document will
then essentially become public. It is current practise for such reports to be
submitted to the Senate Committee on Academic planning and to the
University Senate Itself.
o
L
El
