Council on Academic Affairs (CAA)
200 Bricker Hall Printer-Friendly Version July 22, 2005 3:00-5:00pm
MINUTES Present: Noe (Chair), Paskett, Pletz, Schwartz, Smith (Vice Chair), Vaessin, Winer Guests: Professor William Baeslack (Dean, College of Engineering); Professor Andreas von Recum (College of Veterinary Medicine, and Director, Biomedical Engineering Program); Professor Peter Culicover (Chair), and Professor Elizabeth Hume (Department of Linguistics); Professor Chan Park-Miller (Department of East Asian Languages and Literatures); Professor Edward H. Adelson, (Associate Executive Dean, Colleges of the Arts and Sciences); Jennifer Lando, (Director, Arts and Sciences Curriculum Office); Brad Myers (University Registrar); Scott Pearson (Council of Graduate Students) APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF MAY 25, 2005 Lack of a quorum prevented a vote on the Minutes of the Meeting of May 25, 2005. Action will be taken at the August 24, 2005 Council meeting. COMMENTS FROM THE CHAIR – PROFESSOR RAYMOND NOE Scott Pearson from the Council of Graduate Students was introduced as a new member replacing William Parker, effective Autumn Quarter 2005. COMMENTS FROM THE VICE CHAIR – PROFESSOR W. RANDY SMITH • The University Senate met on June 1, 2005. A failure to maintain a quorum at that meeting resulted in no action being taken on the proposal to establish Regular Clinical Track Faculty in the Fisher College of Business. Action should occur at the Senate meeting on September 29, 2005. • New members of the Council for the 2005-06 year are: Professors Richard Gunther, Department of Political Science, and Vesta Daniel, Department of Art Education, replacing Hathaway and Fullerton. Halasek, who has been completing the term left vacant by Professor Susan Sears, has been reappointed to a full term. The Presidential appointee replacing Schwartz has yet to be named. Student representatives from the Council of Graduate Students will be Scott Pearson and Jane Evans, replacing Parker and Pletz. Freeman from the Inter-Professional Council (IPC), and Ransburg from the Undergraduate Student Government (USG), will serve another year. USG has yet to name a replacement for Rothenberg. • Two summer meetings remain: August 24, and August 31, 2005. • Noe and Smith will meet soon to make proposal assignments to the subcommittees. • In response to a question from Pletz, Smith noted that fiscal issues remain to be addressed on the proposal for a new major in Professional Golf Management; and that the proposal to merge the School of Public Policy and Management with the John Glenn Institute for Public Service and Public Policy will need action by the Senate’s Faculty Council (early Autumn 2005) before this Council can act. PROPOSAL TO ESTABLISH A DEPARTMENT OF BIOMEDICAL ENGINEERING, COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING – PROFESSORS FRANK SCHWARTZ AND ELECTRA PASKETT, SUBCOMMITTEE C Schwartz said the Subcommittee accepted the merits of the proposal, but had met with the representatives several times to address a few issues. There are fewer than 10 faculty (the minimum expected, by University Rule, for department status, and the program did not seem to have a central location – faculty are dispersed across campus. Who would be a part of the new department and who would have control of it? The Subcommittee had wanted confirmation from the Dean about the potential for growth. Although there had been a letter of support from him, there had been no concrete promises. There was concern about the Department’s planned location in Bevis Hall on the west campus and its accessibility to students. Smith noted that he and Fullerton, as Chair of Subcommittee C, had met with Faculty Council on May 27, 2005 and there had been no major concerns or objections. • Had issues with the College of Medicine and Public Health as they relate to tenure initiating units been reconciled? Yes. • Concerns were expressed about the “citizenship” section of the pattern of administration, and the peer evaluation of teaching specifications. • What about the fiscal issues and support for staff? The Subcommittee had hoped for a stronger commitment from the Dean. Faculty Council also had wanted assurances about the fiscal situation. DISCUSSION WITH PROFESSOR WILLIAM BAESLACK, DEAN, COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING, AND PROFESSOR ANDREAS VON RECUM, COLLEGE OF VETERINARY MEDICINE, AND DIRECTOR, BIOMEDICAL ENGINEERING PROGRAM Baeslack said the proposal has been in discussion for several years. Establishing a department will bring greater recognition, and attract more students. A task force will be developed to recruit more faculty. • There is confusion about the table outlining faculty appointments. Why are the faculty not listed with the proposed department rather than their original departments? This would make a better case for the proposal. The table had been established when the proposal was first being developed. The listing will change once there is approval for a department. A suggestion was made to create a new chart to show the faculty in their new tenure initiating unit. • There is concern about the citizenship section of the pattern of administration, (POA) notably the use of the term collegiality. There is a question of academic freedom here. Smith said that he would contact Vice Provost Carole Anderson and ensure that this PAO adheres to the University-based template. Council members noted that a written statement about collegiality should be standard, but not part of the criteria for promotion and von Recum suggested that this could be changed in the proposal. Issues were also raised about the frequency of peer review of teaching and Smith will confer with Anderson on that issue too. Baeslack noted that there has been an agreement all along that these faculty would move to the new department. New faculty positions will be supported by the College of Medicine and Public Health. It will be a 50/50 appointment. The plan was to build the Department first, then move the faculty. Everyone knew that it would take time. Funds will then move with the faculty. These faculty have long-standing research records and are the leaders in this field. With new faculty, a letter will be sent announcing their appointment in the new department. Smith commented that it was important to appreciate the extent of planning that has occurred for this department – including personnel issues such as faculty transfers. • What about staffing? It is expected that soft money and hard money will be used in the beginning. A budget will be generated as the program grows, one that is performance-based. • There will be a proposal for an undergraduate major curriculum in the future. This has the highest priority. Even now the program has been treated as an academic program with a director who attends all of the chairs’ meetings. A budget has been allocated. • What about the physical setting of the West Campus? Will faculty be located there? Yes. The facility is in Bevis Hall. The laboratories are not up to date, so there are plans to do some renovation. There are two projects underway. But the Department will be in one space. Some faculty will work in other parts of the campus, but this is not unusual. Faculty are attracted to this program because of the level of collaboration. The proposal will be brought back to Council for a vote once the information about faculty and the “citizenship” statement have been revised. PROPOSAL TO REVISE THE UNDERGRADUATE MAJOR IN THE DEPARTMENT OF LINGUISTICS – PROFESSOR RAYMOND NOE, CHAIR, SUBCOMMITTEE A The undergraduate major was revised to add a research seminar and several undergraduate courses. Noe said the Subcommittee had wanted to know the rationale for Tracks A & B, and found that one track was for students planning to go on to Graduate School. They also inquired about the rigor of the research covered in Linguistics 595. They met with Hume who addressed these concerns. Subcommittee A recommended approval. • Were students involved in the process? Yes. DISCUSSION WITH PROFESSOR PETER CULICOVER, CHAIR, AND PROFESSOR ELIZABETH HUME, DEPARTMENT OF LINGUISTICS Hume stated that the revision included six course requests – two that were cross-listed. Linguistics 595 was designed to get majors more involved with research. The rationale for the revision was to give the program more strength and visibility. • There had been lack of concurrence from the Department of Sociology because of two course offerings, but those issues had been resolved with a revised syllabus and a rationale. • Is growth expected in the program? Yes. There used to be 20 majors, now there are 110. Because there was not a quorum to vote on this proposal, with agreement by Council members, Smith said he would seek a mail ballot from Council members. PROPOSAL TO ESTABLISH A MAJOR IN KOREAN – PROFESSOR RAYMOND NOE, CHAIR, SUBCOMMITTEE A Subcommittee A had concern that there would not be adequate support for the major with all the other language offerings here and at other institutions. They had met with Park-Miller who provided enough evidence to demonstrate a need for this major. Subcommittee A recommended approval. • The major would be a part of the Department of East Asian Languages and Literatures. The Dean had provided a letter of support from the College of Humanities. • The student numbers are small for a major. Was a marketing plan ever discussed? • Is there a minor program? Yes. Only an undergraduate degree will be offered in this area. • Is there commitment by faculty? Yes. Park-Miller provided a rationale for the major saying it would fit into the University’s plan for diversity and interdisciplinary programs. The East Asian program at Ohio State is highly respected. There have been a lot of changes in this area with a heightened interest in the Korean language and culture. Student numbers have been increasing steadily. Ohio State would be the only university in the Mid-West to offer this major. • Do you have a recruiting plan? No, because there has been enough interest from current students. Will this be enough to sustain the program? Will this be a worthwhile investment? Yes. It has support from the Dean and Department. • What is the rationale for such a major? It fits into the University plan for interdisciplinary programs and diversity. In the area of East Asian Studies there have been a lot of changes. Korean Studies happens to be one of the components of this program and there is broad interest. We have a substantial program here; it is small but it is self sufficient. • There is concern about the size of the major. There are twelve students in the Korean minor. Many will sign up for a major. There have been many inquiries over the past several years. In five years there should be twenty students. • Is there a marketing plan to increase enrollment? There is not, but enrollment has been robust. The Department will advertise the major once the major has been approved. • Is there commitment from the faculty for this major? Yes. Other institutions have lost faculty. What are your plans? There are two tenure-line faculty who can teach in it. Dean Roberts has committed to the major and would support replacing a faculty member if necessary. There is another Korean Studies initiative – the Institute of Korean Studies – to host visiting scholars. • How many Korean majors are there in the United States? It is not known. What other institutions offer a Korean major? The University of California–Los Angeles, the University of Hawaii, and Harvard University offer it. We can offer a variety of courses that are unique and diverse. Ours would be the only one offered in Ohio. Council Discussion: There needs to be a marketing plan to strengthen the case for this major, especially given the small number of students and the budget plan. Smith will meet with Park-Miller to convey this message and help develop a marketing plan. The proposal will come back to the Council for a vote at the August 24, 2005 meeting. The meeting was adjourned at 12:00 noon. Respectfully submitted, W. Randy Smith
|
