200 Bricker Hall Printer-Friendly Version
January 4, 2006
3:00-5:00pm
MINUTES
Present: Professors: Lora Gingerich Dobos, Kay Halasek, Richard Gunther, Raymond Noe (Chair), Electra Paskett, Nancy Reynolds, W. Randy Smith (Vice Chair), Harald Vaessin, George Valco, and Brian Winer
Student Members: Jane Evans (Council of Graduate Students); and Elaine Yeh (Undergraduate Student Government)
Guests: Professor Randy Hodson, Department of Sociology, and Linda Schoen, Assistant Executive Dean, Colleges of Arts and Sciences; Penelope Reighart, Assistant Dean, College of Human Ecology; Jill Pfister, Assistant Dean, College of Food, Agricultural, and Environmental Sciences; Edward Adelson, Associate Executive Dean, Colleges of Arts and Sciences; Brad Myers, University Registrar; Jefferson Blackman-Smith, Senior Associate Director, and David Roy, Undergraduate Admissions and First Year Experience
MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF DECEMBER 7, 2005, WILL BE E-MAILED TO COUNCIL FOR REVIEW ANDVOTED ON AT THE JANUARY 18, 2005, MEETING
COMMENTS FROM THE CHAIR – PROFESSOR RAYMOND NOE
• Faculty Council had planned to meet on the proposed merge of the Department of Public Policy and Management with the John Glenn Institute for Public Service and Public Policy on January 5, 2006, but that discussion was delayed until sometime in February.
- Attempts were made to get it on the agenda, but there remained enough concern over the implication of an Oversight Committee reviewing promotion and tenure. More time was needed for discussion. Once reviewed, Faculty Council will give their comments to the Committee on Academic Freedom and Responsibility (CAFR). The Council on Academic Affairs’ ad hoc committee will then review the proposal for suggested wording.
COMMENTS FROM THE VICE CHAIR – PROFESSOR W. RANDY SMITH
• As follow up to the approved proposal to Create Two New Tracks in the French Major, Smith met with the Colleges of Arts and Sciences to work out suggested changes that were requested by Council. The proposal can now go forward.
• As part of the approval last year of the undergraduate Biomedical Sciences Major, the School of Allied Medical Professions has been invited back to give an update. They will meet with Council on February 1, 2006, to report on enrollments and curriculum development.
• The proposal from the College of Mathematical and Physical Sciences for the reorganization of the Department of Geological Sciences and the renaming of the department to a school will soon be coming forward. The reporting line will remain the same.
• Subcommittee A is expecting to come forward with the proposed undergraduate major in Film Studies; Subcommittee C will soon be ready to present the proposed PhD in Near Eastern Languages and Cultures. As part of a three-year review of the Center for Survey Research, Dean Paul Beck, College of Social and Behavioral Sciences, has been invited back to give an update. He has indicated, however, that the Center is likely to be discontinued. He will nevertheless meet with Council on January 18, 2006.
PROPOSAL TO ESTABLISH AN INTERDISCIPLINARY MINOR: WORK IN A CHANGING ECONOMY – PROFESSOR ELECTRA PASKETT, CHAIR, SUBCOMMITTEE C
Paskett said the Subcommittee had carefully reviewed the proposal and had met with Professor Lucia Dunn, Department of Economics, and Linda Schoen, Assistant Executive Dean, Colleges of the Arts and Sciences, who provided an edited version of the proposal based on their discussions. The minor is mainly for students within the Colleges of Arts and Sciences, but students are expected from the Colleges of Business, Engineering, and Human Ecology. The minor focuses on the role of work in a changing economy, and fits the framework for pre-requisites and requirements for a minor. It was approved by all the committees in the Arts and Sciences. Subcommittee C recommended approval.
• On Page 7 of the proposal wording of the title should be changed to read “Changing” Economy rather then “New” Economy.
• Was there a concurrence form from the Department of Political Science?
• Concerns from the College of Engineering (Page 23) do not appear to have been addressed.
• The word “event” (Page 4, Item 7, second paragraph) should be corrected to read “advent”.
• How many students are anticipated? Thirty in the first year, and up to fifty after that. Information is provided on Page 12 of the proposal.
DISCUSSION WITH PROFESSOR RANDY HODSON, DEPARTMENT OF SOCIOLOGY, AND LINDA SCHOEN, ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE DEAN, COLLEGES OF ARTS AND SCIENCES
Schoen commented that this was an interdisciplinary minor developed by a faculty subcommittee. The minor will be monitored by a faculty advisory committee and assess student learning outcomes and the vitality of the course offerings.
Hodson said that they thought it would be useful for students to get a multiple understanding of the changing role of work, careers and the economy. It is expected that a majority of the students will be from the Colleges of Arts and Sciences, but students outside the Arts and Sciences are expected as well. Different courses will be offered in the minor, such things as industrial design, business, and international studies. The curriculum requires two courses and a set of electives. Though the electives are divided into Columns A and B to reflect the nature of work, and the changing nature of work, both are interchangeable.
• The name of the proposal should be edited on Page 7 to read “Changing” Economy.
• How did the proposers respond to Items 2 and 3 of Edward McCaul’s letter from the College of Engineering which stated that prerequisites are needed for two history courses; that Engineering students are not likely to have the prerequisites; and that Engineering students without the prerequisites are unlikely to take the minor. Schoen said she checked on this and there are no prerequisites for the history courses, but Engineering students may have trouble getting the prerequisites for other courses unless they could use prerequisites from some of their upper level courses. She imagined that some of the economics pre-requisites could be used. Hodson commented that he did not know if economics pre-requisites could be used. It appeared that no accommodations were made to address these issues.
Item 4 of the letter from the College of Engineering stated that it was unusual that there were no computer courses or prerequisites in a minor about a changing economy. McCaul in his letter had recommended a book about computer technologies. Were these suggestions addressed? Hodson felt that computer technology would be covered in the courses offered and in the books used. Schoen said they could always go back to the college curriculum committee and see if other specific courses might be used.
• Schoen was asked if there had been concurrence from the Department of Political Science. Yes. She had received it through an e-mail and felt it was part of the original packet to the Subcommittee. Subcommittee members felt they had seen it in materials they reviewed earlier. Schoen will get a copy of it to Smith.
• Had other courses been considered like digital media offerings from the Department of English? Schoen said yes, they were offering courses very similar to those, but already available to them.
It was felt the proposers did not really address the issue of the lack of courses in computing and instructional technologies, and the economy’s reliance on them, coursework that could have added depth to the minor. Adelson commented that these are the kinds of things that the Oversight Committee can address in the future.
Subcommittee C moved approval, Gunther seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously.
Council Discussion:
Smith asked Council how they wanted to review minors in the future, particularly interdisciplinary minors. Would they like the Chair and Vice Chair, acting as Subcommittee D, to review them, or to have the Subcommittees review them? Council members are to get in touch with him. It was noted that substantial comments came out during the review by the subcommittee, and that other issues are addressed when there is full Council discussion.
What is the flow of instructional subsidy and tuition funds for these minors?
Adelson commented that in many cases the money goes to the departments, unless
the minor has a core course or a foundation course, then it goes to the college. Most of the minors have a foundation course. But as much as possible Arts and Sciences wants to give the funding to the one teaching the course. Smith said this issue is being discussed by the Provost and Vice Provosts.
PROPOSED CHANGES TO HONORS STANDARDS IN THE COLLEGE OF HUMAN ECOLOGY – PROFESSORS RAYMOND A. NOE AND W. RANDY SMITH, SUBCOMMITTEE D
Smith commented that the colleges with honors programs are now going to be making changes to accommodate the requirements of the Honors and Scholars Center. This proposal would be the first for such changes and he wanted to get Council’s reaction. He asked Council members to let him know if they wanted to review all of the honors changes or if they wanted the Chair and Vice Chair to handle it as Subcommittee D.
DISCUSSION WITH PENELOPE REIGHART, ASSISTANT DEAN, COLLEGE OF HUMAN ECOLOGY
Reighart gave an update of the proposed changes to the honors standards saying that faculty from the College of Human Ecology had voted in favor of the changes. An honors thesis would be required and a 3.4 grade point average. There would not be enough students to have separate honors sections. Council members had no questions.
PROPOSAL TO ESTABLISH TWO UNDERGRADUATE MINOR PROGRAMS: FOOD PROCESSING AND FOOD SAFETY, COLLEGE OF FOOD, AGRICULTURAL, AND ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES – PROFESSORS RAYMOND A. NOE AND W. RANDY SMITH, SUBCOMMITTEE D
Both proposals adhered to the guidelines to establish minors, and neither program is expecting a large number of students – 20-25 students are expected in each. Each minor has its own set of required courses and electives.
DISCUSSION WITH JILL A. PFISTER, ASSISTANT DEAN, COLLEGE OF FOOD, AGRICULTURAL, AND ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES
• Do people in Chemistry or Chemical Engineering know the direction they are going? There are some courses that we offer as service courses to units outside of the College. Food Microbiology is one. Students will take that course as a part of their major. Students with an interest in food quality usually know about our courses. This minor could draw some of those students. There is also the food processing side of the College of Engineering. We could draw some of those students. A lot will be luck, but there will be recruiting within the units in the Colleges of Biological Sciences, and Engineering. So the advisors know that the minors are out there.
• The proposal “Work in a Changing Economy” had a list of the courses and pre-requisites required for the minor. Were you asked to put a list in this proposal? No. Smith commented that a listing was asked for because it was an inter-disciplinary minor.
• Pfister commented that there are not any hidden pre-requisites for their courses. There is an Organic Chemistry requirement for some of the food sciences – but the microbiology and biology students will have it anyway.
• Was there a national security minor in food last year? Were there courses outside of agriculture that dealt with food? Safety packaging, etc.? Pfister said a major is out there, but it was more of an international studies’ major. It did not have any of these courses in it.
• From what area do you anticipate students will come? There will not be a lot of students from the College of Food, Agricultural, and Environmental Sciences. It is going to be a service minor for students mainly outside the College – those in the Departments of Microbiology, Evolution, Ecology, and Organismal Biology, Civil Engineering, etc. Agri-business students might be interested, but they will not have the organic chemistry required, so they will probably go the food processing route.
• These minors are pretty close to each other – seeing the requirements and electives - what makes them different, and why two separate minors? We are trying to serve two separate groups of students. The food processing minor does not require organic chemistry which would service more students. We see the food safety minor as more of a draw, but it requires organic chemistry. It is for students interested in bioterrorism, etc. What course required the organic chemistry prerequisite? Food Safety 636.
• Is there an ethical dimension to the jobs in food processing and food safety? Are ethics courses ever included in the coursework? No, but ethics is integrated into a lot of our core courses.
Subcommittee D moved approval, Dobos seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously.
DISCUSSION OF THE TIMELINE FOR REVIEW OF THE FINAL REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON THE UNIVERSITY-WIDE REVIEW OF UNDERGRADUATE EDUCATION
• Will all comments from the Colleges be sent to the Council or will it be just a letter summarizing the comments? All comments will be turned over to Council.
• The timeline for Council review is short. May to September 15 is far too little time to do a full review. Smith said they will need to bring in Professor Brian McHale, Chair of the Committee, for a discussion.
• Who will train the advisors?
• There is far too much certainly that these recommendations will be implemented. That may not at all be the case. Nor does this timeline consider the time needed to revise the proposal. The Council on Academic Affairs is a Senate committee and it will need ample time and adequate resources to do the review. It was noted that the review is being given a full year.
• The timeline for the University Senate review should be extended to at least December 2006. That is not enough time as it is.
• The timeline for the Colleges of Arts and Sciences is extremely long compared to the others. They have until May 1, 2006. They requested that much time since they must accommodate four levels of review.
• There is a lot of planning that most take place in terms of Council’s review. How will we do it? What steps will be taken? Concern too, is that the review is over the summer when Council membership is in transition. Smith commented that old members stay through the summer. New members do not officially start until October 1, 2006. What if the old membership have not completed their report before they rotate off Council? It would be an advantage for the new members to have background on it then.
• Perhaps we need ad hoc committees within Council to breakdown the responses for review. In that regard perhaps Council needs to be thinking of ways to spend less time in review of regular proposals. Perhaps we could streamline the review process by avoiding two rounds of interviews with guests. Smith commented that proposers have expressed an interest in being invited to the meetings and being involved in the process.
• Smith commented that Council needs to be thinking about ways to breakdown the responses into bundles, perhaps in freshmen clusters, curriculum clusters, budget comments, and staffing issues.
• Could we expedite things by getting responses back early from the colleges outside the Arts and Sciences, such as the Colleges of Human Ecology, Social Work and Nursing? Perhaps using an April 1, 2006, deadline for those colleges. This would give Council a head start. There has to be a dialogue with the Arts and Sciences on this. Smith commented that he and Vice Provost Martha Garland will convene the colleges late Winter Quarter 2006 or early spring and meet with the curricular deans to discuss the responses. Smith said he will let Provost Barbara Snyder know Council’s thinking on the timeline.
The meeting was adjourned at 4:15pm.
Respectfully submitted,
W. Randy Smith
Joyce Rankin
