Council on Academic Affairs (CAA)

1039 Derby Hall                                    Printer-Friendly Version                        

August 31, 2005

10:00 am – 2:00 pm

MINUTES

Present: Freeman, Fullerton, Halasek, McMahon, Noe (Chair), Parker, Pletz, Smith (Vice Chair), Vaessin, and Valco

Guests: Jill Pfister, Assistant Dean, College of Food, Agricultural and Environmental Sciences; Professor Mark Bennett (Interim Chair), and Professor Ray Miller, Department of Horticulture and Crop Science; Linda Harlow, Associate Provost and Director, University Honors and Scholars Center; and Scott Pearson, Council of Graduate Students.

APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF AUGUST 24, 2005

The Minutes of the Meeting of August 24, 2005 will be approved at a forthcoming meeting.

COMMENTS FROM THE CHAIR – PROFESSOR RAYMOND NOE

Three new faculty members will be added to the Council beginning Autumn 2005: Professor Vesta Daniel, (Department of Art Education); Professor Richard Gunther, (Department of Political Science), and Professor Nancy Reynolds (College of Nursing).

COMMENTS FROM THE VICE CHAIR – PROFESSOR W. RANDY SMITH

The following proposals will be presented at the University Senate meeting on September 29, 2005: Regular Clinical Track Faculty for the Fisher College of Business; establishment of the Department of Biomedical Engineering; and the proposal to rename the School of Natural Resources. The University Senate has informed Smith that additional items can be placed on the agenda for action.

PROPOSAL TO ESTABLISH AN UNDERGRADUATE MAJOR PROGRAM IN PROFESSIONAL GOLF MANAGEMENT, DEPARTMENT OF HORTICULTURE AND CROP SCIENCE – PROFESSOR KAY HALASEK, CHAIR, SUBCOMMITTEE B

Halasek reviewed the proposal and highlighted the issues that the Subcommittee had raised. Considerable attention was given to the fiscal impacts on both the Department and the College, and the impact of Professional Golf Association (PGA) requirements. With regard to the latter, there was an issue with regard to the citizenship of students. PGA requirements indicate that only US citizens are eligible for enrollment in the program. Clarification revealed that upon completion of the program, the student would be eligible for membership in the PGA of her/his own country.

With regard to the former - fiscal, administrative and undergraduate curricular impact – there were concerns that the Department was going forward with full responsibility for administration with only one additional administrator in the department – the assistant director. The Subcommittee asked the Department to revote and was assured by the College Office that resources would be made available for the program.

Halasek noted that there has been a change in the administration of the Department since the proposal was submitted. Professor Stephen Myers has stepped down as Chair and Professor Mark Bennet is now Interim Chair. Smith noted that the Department also recently (April 2005) had completed a program review and that both the internal and external review team reports commented on the importance of this initiative to the future of the Department.

Council members had few concerns about the academic or administrative components about the program. However several Council members did question why some members of the faculty had not supported the proposal at the department level, and they raised concerns about admission requirements to the program, notably the use of an athletic-based score and the implications for students with disabilities.

DISCUSSION WITH JILL PFISTER, ASSISTANT DEAN, COLLEGE OF FOOD, AGRICULTURAL, AND ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES, PROFESSORS MARK BENNET, INTERIM CHAIR, AND RAY MILLER, DEPARTMENT OF HORTICULTURE AND CROP SCIENCE

Miller noted that this is a new program and is not currently offered to students anywhere within the state of Ohio. This new major would incorporate components that are currently offered in Horticulture & Crop Science, as well as in the Fisher College of Business, the College of Human Ecology, and the College of Education. This is a major that when the students complete the degree, they have opportunities for employment in a number of areas within and outside the golf industry. Students take extensive coursework and extensive internships (16 months). There are no existing programs within Ohio, West Virginia, Indiana, Kentucky, Tennessee, Illinois, Arkansas, Missouri and New York. This will be a unique program with an extensive student base that can be recruited.

In order to have a professional golf program it is not necessary to have PGA certification, but it cannot be called Professional Golf Management. Certification gives credibility to the program. If the University approves this proposal, in about 6-9 months, the Department would seek accreditation by the PGA of America. The PGA will have little influence on curriculum, but will give broad guidelines. They review the curriculum, look at the facilities, review the department, the credentials of the University and the people teaching. There is an on site visit to make sure that all is in place and they make a decision on their own if they want to accredit the program. If they do accredit it, they provide some financial assistance – one or two scholarships for students, also some funds for facilities that might have to be developed to meet their accreditation requirements.

Halasek raised the issue of the use of a golf score for admission/advancement in the program. Miller noted that if a student cannot show the ability or the inclination to pass that test, he/she would be advised to move into another curriculum area associated with Professional Golf Management. The basic plan is to follow and track the students through the program so that if they cannot pass those requirements, they can transfer.
They will recruit and admit students into the major only if they have the initial ability to pass that test. That is established for them by documenting a USPGA handicap of 10 or less, or if they have a letter from a high school coach, or a PGA player to verify their level. Once in the major, they must take the playability test. Each quarter this is administered by PGA of America. Once the student passes it, they have passed for life. In addition, they plan to have student run golf tournaments and professionals coming in if they might need assistance. The Department will be more strict than the PGA. The PGA has said that we may not admit students with a higher than a 12 handicap. We say they must have a 10 handicap.

With that clarification, Council members asked about students with disabilities. Miller said that they have started working with the organization Fore Hope. It works with disabled golfers. Fore Hope has instructions on how to work with the students. The students can finish the degree, but not through this major.
Comparisons were drawn with student admission and progress in dance or music or aviation, and the relationship to other entrance scores such as LSAT or MCAT.

Miller stressed that everyone still has to take the playability test. Playability is separate - a way to screen students who have a golf skill to hopefully pass the PAT. Are there fees associated with taking this test? Yes there is a $60 fee each time.

With regard to other institutions that offer this program, the list includes The Pennsylvania State University and Arizona State University. They have needed to confront some of the issues raised here. Miller said that at the larger institutions, they will use extensive counseling of the students, track their playability, and recommend that they move into other programs as needed. They are handling things the same as we are proposing to handle this.

Will the PGA limit the number of programs to 20, as indicated here, and might some be decertified? Miller suggested that actually the PGA will not limit it to 20. They are looking for quality programs.

Paskett asked why some faculty had not approved this proposal. The votes were anonymous but there were concerns about the impact of this program on the existing major programs. However recent enrollments in them have dropped, and so this program with a modest size at the outset, can offset that trend. There have been over 150 enquiries from students interested in this program. The University of Nebraska has had large enrollments.

CONTINUED DISCUSSION

Several Council members expressed concern about acting on this proposal until Smith could follow up on key implementation issues.

Pletz moved that the proposal be tabled. Vaessin seconded the motion and the vote was 8 in favor and 1 abstention.
Smith indicated that this proposal likely will be back for action at the next Council meeting.

PROPOSAL TO ESTABLISH AN UNDERGADUATE MINOR IN MEAT SCIENCE, DEPARTMENT OF ANIMAL SCIENCES – PROFESSORS RAYMOND NOE, CHAIR, AND W. RANDY SMITH, SUBCOMMITTEE D

Noe noted that there is a number of different options in the curriculum depending on what area in meat science the student wants to pursue. They will recruit students from within the College and other areas. Enrollments are projected to be 10 to 15 students the first year, with an increase of up to 30 students. Subcommittee D recommends approval. Smith noted that the Department has followed a set of guidelines for many years, and that students with majors are required to have a minor.
• Why can the students in majors in Animal Science not use this as a minor? It is too closely related.
• Further elaboration is needed on the Microbiology 509 course and the Department’s concurrence.
• Why are some instructors listed from Wooster? They can be involved either by a video link or a visit to the Columbus campus.
• What is meant by meat production? This includes products that are not typical mainstream pork or chicken.
• Would these students be able to work in the slaughterhouse?

DISCUSSION WITH JILL PFISTER, ASSISTANT DEAN, COLLEGE OF FOOD, AGRICULTURAL, AND ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES

Pfister noted that are several minors in the College but this is a new minor, based on criteria set in place many years ago, and one that is open to students from throughout the University. It is for students who are interested in pursuing areas in meat science - safety or production related. It is not expected that here will be a large enrollment.

In response to questions, she noted that: some students will take Microbiology 509 as an elective and that these students will have some opportunity to work in the slaughterhouse.
Noe moved approval, Halasek seconded the motion, and it passed unanimously.

PROPOSAL TO ESTABLISH TWO MAJORS (PRE-FOOD BUSINESS AND PRE-AGRICULTURAL COMMUNICATION) FOR THE ASSOCIATE OF SCIENCE DEGREE PROGRAM AT THE AGRICULTURAL TECHNICAL INSTITUTE (ATI) –– PROFESSORS RAYMOND NOE AND W. RANDY SMITH, SUBCOMMITTEE D.

Smith provided an overview of the two proposals noting that is an important step for students who want to start at ATI and then transfer to Columbus – a 2+2 option.

DISCUSSION WITH JILL PFISTER, ASSISTANT DEAN, COLLEGE OF FOOD, AGRICULTURAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES

Pfister said that the Associate of Science program admits about 100 students each Autumn and about 50% of them transfer to Columbus. In any given year Columbus gets about 70 students. Most have a degree, but some do not. She works with those students as they make that transition. These programs represent an important new opportunity for students.

In response to questions she noted that some courses will be offered on line, others face-to-face. It depends on what the instructor wants to do. Agricultural Communication plans to have direct instructor contact rather than on line. Faculty from Columbus might go to Wooster in some cases.

Noe moved approval, Parker seconded the motion and it was approved unanimously.

Smith will inform the Ohio Board of Regents of this action and seek approval.

PROPOSED GUIDELINES FOR THE OFFERING OF HONORS EMBEDDED COURSES – PROFESSORS RAYMOND NOE AND W. RANDY SMITH, SUBCOMMITTEE D.

Noe and Smith provided an overview of the proposal. Guidelines are being developed to help departments/schools offer honors embedded courses. Most peer Council on Institutional Cooperation (CIC) institutions have this option.
Council members expressed concern about who would teach these courses – would it always be regular full-time faculty? This needs clarification. Are all of the colleges supportive of the initiative? Will there be a substantial number of courses that will suddenly begin to take this approach? What is the formal process for approval of these courses? Could a lower division course be offered as an honors-embedded version because there is no limitation on lower division courses, or is it for upper division only? How are other CIC programs run?

DISCUSSION WITH PROFESSOR LINDA HARLOW, ASSOCIATE PROVOST AND DIRECTOR, UNIVERSITY HONORS AND SCHOLARS

Harlow noted that honors embedded courses are special honors experiences for honors students. Honors students want more classes. About two thirds of the curriculum is at the 100 and 200 level and enrollments are small at the upper levels. All CIC institutions except OSU offer some version of this. We had been resistant to this but with better students wanting these offerings, and academic units sensitive to enrollments in the current budget model, it is time to move forward. The concept was piloted last year in the Colleges of the Arts and Sciences and the experience was received positively by students and faculty.

These are Guidelines put together with each of the colleges represented. This should be seen as a complement not a replacement to what we have in the honors curriculum. Through these University Guidelines, certain courses would be open to an honors experience. They have consulted with the University Registrar’s Office on the process of implementation.
Individual colleges were going to put these together and come to Council individually. One of the policies is that all honors courses have to have faculty involvement for enhanced interaction between faculty and students. Colleges could set those standards. That was in some of the individual proposals and not others. That is why they were put together in one agreement.

Halasek asked about the general description. In the first paragraph, it says additional embedded courses should not be ordered. Is that “should” or “must not be”? There are some sequences, such as in physics, where, if you added the first course in a series, you must take the rest as non honors courses. Is it possible that students would go to their colleges and ask that they take those honors courses out of order?
Council members had questions about implementation. Can faculty members, without consultation with their departments, just send a proposal to the college level? Harlow said that the College itself would set up the process, but typically college procedure would involve the department. Halasek and Fullerton urged that there be departmental review specified, and others concurred.

In response to questions, Harlow said that these sections are for regular faculty and not meant to be assigned, no matter the reason, to others. She said that these sections will be offered through separate call numbers. But separate call numbers will not be identified until the faculty member has agreed to teach the course. Once it is offered, it would stay in the Master Schedule so the student would know. These sections are done not for additional pay, but because faculty like to work with honors students. This does not obligate the faculty to offer this section each time the course is offered.

Could a department propose that all courses offered have honors embedded sections? Once a course gets the designation, each quarter you must go to the Registrar to get the designation. It is the responsibility of the department. In effect this means that departments should be having regular discussions about their honors offerings.

Fullerton and Smith suggested that such proposals should be reviewed in a similar manner to the way new courses are submitted with a parallel set of signature lines.
Harlow noted that not all departments will do this, but those that want to do so, now can. The Student Advisory Board is supportive. There will be an evaluation form to be filled out by students and by the instructors.

Is there a typical model at peer institutions? Harlow said that there is not. This approach follows the Penn State model.
Smith said that there should be at least one annual report on honors to Council each year, where the impact of this initiative could be reviewed.

Given that additional information and clarifications were sought, Halasek moved to table the proposal. Valco seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously.

PROPOSAL TO REVISE THE GENERAL EDUCATION CURRICULUM (GEC), COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING – PROFESSOR MARK FULLERTON, CHAIR, SUBCOMMITTEE C

Council continued its review of the proposal that it had begun at the meeting on August 24, 2005. Smith noted that no matter how many parts of the proposal are approved, an implementation plan will need to be developed, notably with academic units in the Colleges of the Arts and Sciences.

Two proposals remain to be acted upon. Discussion turned to the proposal to establish an ethics requirement within the Engineering GEC. The original proposal was to create a new ethics category for the GEC, but this revised proposal is to have an ethics portion within the GEC. Subcommittee C recommended approval of this revised proposal.

Smith noted that this meant that a subset of courses from within the Arts and Humanities and the Social Sciences categories of the GEC would be designated for this purpose for Engineering students. Engineering would be directing their students to those courses. Academic units in the Arts and Sciences had expressed their willingness to make enough sections of the courses available. If the courses do not yet exist, they would need to be approved for GEC status through the current process.

Most Council members believed that Engineering should be permitted to pursue this approach. Although there is currently a special committee completing a University-wide Review of Undergraduate Education, and its recommendations may have an impact on the GEC throughout the University, this proposal should be evaluated on its own merits. The special committee will not issue a report for several weeks and implementation of any recommendations would not occur anytime soon. The College has a specialized accreditation visit (ABET) scheduled for late in October and needs action on this set of proposals.
Proposal: Create an Ethics Requirement in the Engineering GEC
Fullerton moved approval. Halasek seconded the motion and it passed with 12 in favor and one abstention.

Council then considered the proposal to maintain a 20-hour Arts and Humanities requirement for Engineering but allow double counting of one Arts and Humanities course as a second History course.

Smith noted that for the Arts and Sciences the requirement is 25 hours: a 10-hour history sequence and then 15 hours of Art & Humanity distributed through three areas. Currently Engineering has a 20- hour requirement: 10 in history and 9 or 10 among the other 3 categories. This would have an enrollment impact on the Department of History given the large number of undergraduate majors in Engineering. Only the College of Food, Agricultural and Environmental Sciences (FAES) does not have a 2-course history sequence. McMahon stressed that in this proposal they will still have the same number of hours, but we would open their options. They can select others.

Halasek expressed concern about the committee structure for making the decisions if this proposal is approved. It needs more Arts and Sciences involvement. It needs at least equal apportionment on the committee. They should also get support from departments that had these courses.

Several Council members argued that they did not believe that a two-course sequence was necessary for the history requirement. Does a student really lose continuity by not having a sequence? McMahon noted that we would all like to have students experiencing continuity that follows many of our courses, but how legitimate is that belief? Her College (FAES) does not have the two course history sequence requirement and she does not see a dramatic impact. Two courses might be important, but are they absolutely critical?

Other Council members expressed more concern about the double-counting issue and wondered about the relationship of this proposal to the proposal for ethics. How much overlap/double counting is appropriate?

Fullerton then outlined several possible solutions to address this proposal: keep the current approach; drop the second history course; or leave the 20 hours and substitute. How would the College react to these options?

Rather than make friendly amendments it was decided to vote on the Subcommittee recommendation.

Proposal: Maintain a 20 Hour Arts and Humanities (including History) Requirement: Permit Double Count in One Arts and Humanities Course as a Second History Course.
Noe moved approval. McMahon seconded the motion. There were no votes in favor; eight votes against, and one abstention.
Smith will contact Professor Robert Gustafson, Associate Dean, College of Engineering with the outcome from Council action and ask if the College wants to accept the version of the proposal approved by Council. He will also indicate that Council would consider other options for this category and Fullerton will outline possibilities – based on this discussion - that Smith will share with Gustafson.

The Meeting was adjourned at 2:50 pm.

Respectfully Submitted

W. Randy Smith

Joanne Weston