Much has been written about the faculty of arts proposal to enhance the connection between research and undergraduate teaching by increasing the proportion of courses taught by professors who devote their careers to advancing their disciplines, as well as increasing the availability of teaching-assistant support to professors and students.

These objectives have long been part of the strategic plans of the university and the faculty, going back to the Provost’s 2006 White Paper (Strengths and Aspirations).

Some of the reaction to these realignments has tended toward the apocalyptic. But let us keep things in perspective. Arts students will experience many benefits by reallocating resources to teaching assistantships: more financial support for graduate students, smaller conference sections, better undergraduate student access to certain courses, and more time for professors to have substantive interactions with students.

All of which students have told us, repeatedly, that they want.

Discussions about these objectives go back to 2008. In 2010-2011, the faculty held important consultations with students, including a Town Hall—in which the issue of diminishing teaching-assistant support came up frequently—and a Dean’s Working Group on Academic Program Delivery that included students and consulted widely.

The student press reported on both at the time.

At the first meeting with the Chairs of arts departments on Sept. 2, 2012, I indicated that the faculty would make progress on these strategic priorities. I outlined the importance of the objectives and outlined some initial thoughts on how to achieve them at the first Faculty Council meeting of the year on Sept. 25, 2012. I reported on it again during the Nov. 20 Faculty Council meeting, and met the VP Academic of AUS on Dec. 6 to discuss the proposal in more detail.

I suggested it would be valuable to hold an AUS Town Hall on the topic. I again updated the Faculty Council on the proposal on Jan. 15, 2013—which seems to be when people began to pay attention. Rather than a sudden announcement of something new, my discussion on Jan. 15 was an update of a lengthy process of discussion and consultation.

Contrary to conventional wisdom, the faculty of arts teaches a large number of low-enrolment, even under-enrolled courses. In 2011-12, the faculty offered 443 undergraduate courses (excluding such things as reading courses) with 20 or fewer students, representing 37 per cent of all its courses that year. More surprisingly, the Faculty offered 230 courses (about 20 per cent) with 10 or fewer students.

Here’s my question: could the faculty free up resources by teaching 100 fewer small or under-enrolled courses? I asked Associate Dean Gillian Lane-Mercier to consult with each teaching unit in search of an answer.

To be sure, there are consequences to offering fewer lower-enrolment courses. One scenario could be that the faculty offers 100 fewer courses with enrolments below 10, which would result in the displacement of about 550 students to the faculty’s remaining 1,100 courses (which would raise the average size of those courses by 0.5 students).

Many have asked about the message the faculty is sending to potential students. I think the message is this: that when the faculty of arts promises prospective students that they will be taught by some of the world’s leading experts in their fields, we are able to honour that promise by having those experts in undergraduate classrooms.