200 Bricker Hall
March 1, 2006
3:00-5:00pm
MINUTES
Present: Professors: Lora Gingerich Dobos, Richard Gunther, Kay Halasek, Raymond Noe (Chair), Nancy Reynolds, W. Randy Smith (Vice Chair), Harald Vaessin, George Valco
Student Members: Jane Evans and Scott Pearson (Council of Graduate Students); Kevin Freeman (Inter-Professional Council), and Elaine Yeh (Undergraduate Student Government)
Guests: Professor Edward H. Adelson, Associate Executive Dean, and Melissa Mercerhill, Director, Curriculum Office, Colleges of the Arts and Sciences; Jed Dickhaut, Associate Registrar, Office of the University Registrar; Jefferson R. Blackburn-Smith, Senior Associate Director, and David Roy, Office of Undergraduate Admissions and First Year Experience; Professor W. Michael Sherman, Vice Provost, Office of Academic Affairs; Briggs Cormier, Office of the University Senate
MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF FEBRUARY 15, 2006
Vaessin moved approval of the Minutes of the Meeting of February 15, 2006, Pearson seconded the motion, and it carried unanimously.
COMMENTS FROM THE CHAIR – PROFESSOR RAYMOND A. NOE
• There were no comments.
COMMENTS FROM THE VICE CHAIR – PROFESSOR W. RANDY SMITH
• Has been asked to attend the March 3, 2006 meeting of the Regents Advisory Committee on Graduate Study (RACGS) for the review of/action on the proposal to establish a professional doctorate in Physical Therapy.
DISCUSSION OF THE REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE ON THE UNIVERSITY-WIDE REVIEW OF UNDERGRADUATE EDUCATION – PROFESSOR BRIAN MCHALE, CHAIR
McHale summarized what the Committee had done, followed by a discussion with Council members that addressed questions prepared by Noe and Smith, drawn from the draft Minutes of the Council meeting on February 15, 2006.
• What process did the Committee use?
McHale said that the Committee began its review in January 2005; met weekly until Summer 2005; and then met biweekly until it completed its work in October 2005. It started by trying to understand the current General Education Curriculum (GEC). It reviewed the documents that established the GEC; the Report of the Undergraduate Curriculum Review Committee, 2003; the written responses to that report by the Colleges of the Arts and Sciences’ Committee on Curriculum and Instruction; the Report on General Education by the University of California-Los Angeles (UCLA); the Yale College Education Report 2003. It sampled benchmark data.
The Committee met with: the Literacy Studies working group headed by Professor Harvey Graff, Department of English; Senior Vice President for Business and Finance, William J. Shkurti and Executive Vice President and Provost Barbara R. Snyder to discuss their commitment to budgeting; and Professor Alexis Collier regarding the Colleges of Arts and Sciences’ assessment initiatives. It participated in a teleconference with UCLA in June regarding freshman clusters. The Committee broke into working groups to collect institutional data; to prepare questions for constituencies on campus; to discuss model programs at other institutions; to look at the writing sequence at Ohio State; and to look at syllabi for GEC courses.
Enrollment data that they reviewed included information about general education courses, minors, double majors in the honors program, and instructional patterns by college. It participated in a survey by the Undergraduate Student Government on the GEC and reviewed the findings. The Committee visited various student, advisor, and faculty groups across campus, to determine the alignment with issues raised there and those established by the Committee. McHale said that he also participated in a teleconference held with the regional campuses.
McHale said the approach adopted was the one used by the “Reagan Committee” in 1988. The charge of the Committee was to develop ideas rather than provide extensive documentation. He believes that this was one of the reasons the Committee was successful. It left the most contentious issues until last. The Committee first discussed areas where it could get a consensus and then developed a positive proposal from there. It did not talk about “numbers” until late in the process;it first wanted to think about possible alternative models for the GEC and what the consequences of using those models might be.
• What was the reasoning behind the recommendation of 180 credit hours?
McHale said the reasons are specified in the Report, but there were two parts to the rationale - external and internal. The external rationale was that the benchmark institutions appeared to use 180 credit hours at quarter-based institutions and that was generally the norm. The Committee felt there was no compelling reason why The Ohio State University should require more.
The internal rationale was the desire for students to graduate in four years. The Committee believed that it was inconsistent and irrational to insist that students take 15 credit hours per quarter for 12 quarters when courses were not always available. They did feel that 15 credit hours per quarter seemed to be an appropriate course load for 12 quarters.
Do we have an inflation of credit hours for individual courses? Would it be better to require a certain number of courses rather than give credit hours? McHale said that it was very difficult to address this. A credit hour does not easily translate from course to course or college to college. The Committee said that it considered reducing five credit hour courses to four credit hours, but comparability across the institutions (or within the institution) could not be resolved.
Should we discuss what a credit hour means? McHale said that the whole issue of using credit hours is so variable it is difficult to discuss. Gunther noted that there are those in favor of such a change, but the University Rule and Ohio Administrative Code regarding credit hours are specifically and strictly defined by the Ohio Board of Regents. The standard is one credit hour per three hours of work in and out of the classroom. Forty five hours per week is the baseline. This works. If this were to be changed, then every course would have to be restructured. The Board of Regents would have to change the rule.
The University requires 191 credit hours to graduation and that is tied to a state-wide funding formula. Different institutions outside of Ohio do not have enrollment driven funding formulas from their state government. If we should go from 191 to 180 credit hours, what does that do with our competition at other four year schools and the allocation of state instructional subsidy? One easy way to address this issue would be to increase the size of our freshman class, but without this step we could really take a major loss.
• There appears to be a disconnect between the recommendation to reduce the curriculum by 11 hours, yet reduce the GEC by 30 hours. Why?
McHale said that there really was not a disconnect. The two different proposals have two different rationales. The rationale to reduce the credit hours to graduation (as noted above) has both external and internal components. The proposal about the GEC hour reduction is related to the goal of opening up desirable opportunities for true electives for many majors. Preserving electives was desirable. That is what lies behind proportionately large cuts in the GEC relative to the overall shrinkage from 191 to 180 hours. The Committee saw that preserving the electives was desirable because it added the flexibility that it was looking for.
• Do you anticipate that colleges will add courses to all majors to increase the size of the major given that the GEC hours have been reduced? What is the relationship between the courses in the GEC and the major?
McHale acknowledged that there is a risk of this happening. He said that the language in the Report gives a warning about it. He commented that it is advisable to make it difficult for the majors to be expanded. We need to preserve elective space.
Smith commented that if departments want to expand their majors they would have to come before Council, and it would have to be more vigilant and proactive in review of programs. Is there a standard number of hours for a major? It is 40 hours, but in recent years there has been expansion of the number of hours in the major programs to well beyond 40 hours.
Council members noted that if we stay at 85 hours for the GEC and, say, 45 hours for the major, that produces 130 credit hours, and that would leave 50 credit hours unaccounted for. That is a lot of electives, or easily enough for a second major, or a minor. Accommodating an 11 credit hour cut could easily be done through incremental and modest shifts in the existing GEC. One would still be including the breadth of interdisciplinary experience, and reducing the number of credit hours for graduation. We could allow a drop in a GEC option for other experiences such as a special class taken in high school. We could allow for double majors or minors without cutting the GEC. On the other hand, a student could manipulate the system and graduate with a very narrow program.
Did you focus on incremental shifts? McHale said that they thought of minors and double majors as positive options, adding greater flexibility and greater coherence to a student’s program. It would encourage integrated pieces in their curriculum.
• Do the recommendations produce too much flexibility for students?
Council members questioned why this plan is more desirable than broadening a liberal arts education? Under the proposed plan students could major in two languages and minor in a third, and it would be coherent, but it would not be a liberal education. Students “should” be more broadly educated as undergraduates. They can get their
specializations in graduate programs. There are no rules in this proposal that
would enable a faculty advisor to deny student requests. McHale said that we cannot
avoid the worse case scenarios. Students can play the system if they
choose and they can do so now with the current GEC. We cannot totally avoid risk if we
want to offer some new ideas and build in flexibility.
There is a variety of coursework for students in the present plan - an average of 50 courses per category in the current GEC. There is leeway: we are not constraining students’ freedom of choice. Conversely, McHale said, he did not see a downside to other possibilities. We are designing for the most ambitious, conscientious students, and they will probably not take the easy way out.
One Council member said that he did not know whether students in his college would have more flexibility under this plan, or whether they would take advantage of the broader range of courses or work toward their goals avoiding certain courses. He said that the courses that had the greatest impact in his life were not in his major, yet they enriched his life. Are 18 and 19 year olds sufficiently able to make decisions at this point? Smith said the “degree of flexibility” is the issue. There is a tradeoff between short term and long term utility of some of these courses.
McHale said arguments for the current GEC make it sound more structured than it really is. The present GEC does not actually guarantee the kind of experiences we are talking about. Even if we encourage students to take a foreign language and if they could minor in them, realistically, students could easily avoid them.
Taking a foreign language turned out to be a benefit for one Council member, who said it was an important part of his education. Yet, it was interesting to see how easy it was to avoid. He said it provided a benefit he did not expect. McHale said that he thought those same principles were captured in the new proposal.
• Have you considered the increased role of advisers in your recommendations?
The other side of building in flexibility is expecting a higher level of advising. That issue needs to be addressed fully in implementation. Advising will make a difference.
• The recommendation to reduce the GEC appears to be a “radical” change. Do you see it as too “radical” a change?
McHale said that it depends on what is meant by radical. It seems to be a conservative proposal compared to what others have made, by encouraging substitutions, minors and double majors. There are more radical ways than this to revise general education. He said that he did not know how to respond to this question. Smith said that this question primarily links back to the 30 hour reduction in the GEC issue.
• Did the committee go too far in identifying what the freshman clusters would look like?
McHale said that the Committee tried to put together a concrete plan, but it was probably premature to have outlined the level of detail that it did. The Committee used the model at UCLA, with the understanding that there could be a different fit for Ohio State. He suggested that the Committee would be supportive of a modified approach, especially with the “writing” component. He believes that the cluster concept should be retooled to something more compatible with this institution.
Some Council members suggested that it would make more sense, after students have had a variety of courses, to try and integrate them in a freshmen cluster, but incoming freshmen have to decide what cluster they want before they have had a single course. Students should probably be advised in the Summer before they arrive. The idea of a senior cluster at the end of their undergraduate career could be an option for clusters. Did the Committee discuss that option? McHale said that the freshmen cluster could be looked at as an exploration and in a sense it may be a way of shopping for a major and as a way for interdisciplinary thinking. The cluster would get students off the ground in terms of thinking about their majors. It is an important gateway experience.
There is a different rationale for the Senior Cluster and having contact with senior faculty. We had problems in getting faculty to teach the current 597 courses (capstone: issues of the contemporary world). Are there incentives built in to this program to attract faculty? Yes. McHale said they expect and hope that they will be built in. They received assurances from the central administration.
Smith outlined the problems that had developed with the implementation of the 597 courses in the 1980s. That was in large part why units could not attract faculty. We will have to be forthright with this concept about expectations and then adhere to them.
With regard to freshman seminars, some faculty had concerns that they should be offered as a 3-5 credit hour course. McHale clarified that freshmen seminars are different from the freshmen clusters. They are two different but parallel offerings. The Committee endorsed the freshman seminars. The proposal to upgrade them to a 3-5 credit hour course was a way to express that endorsement. McHale said that he now accepts the point that there may be a downside to doing that. It might make it less attractive for faculty, but the Committee thought that it might be a way to integrate them more fully into a curriculum. They thought of freshman seminars as being an alternative to freshman clusters for students who were not in a position to commit to the three quarters in a freshman cluster. The Committee did review them in detail.
• What are the fiscal implications of the recommendations?
One Council member noted that the Committee was instructed not to look at the fiscal side of the design, but the University could take a major financial loss based on the Board of Regents’ funding formula. The difference in the level of state subsidy that we receive for 100-level classes as compared to a 500 level class is huge. If we took three faculty out of a 500 level class to teach 100 level, there would be a massive decline in the amount of money we would get from the state. The Provost is talking about redistributing money within a fixed amount, taking money out of existing programs in department budgets in order to fund these recommendations. What is the overall impact, particularly at a time when we are looking at declining state support for higher education? Smith said that the Senate Fiscal Committee is wanting to look at this document and work with this Council on the fiscal impacts, in the months ahead. He and Vice Provost Michael Sherman, who works with that Committee, are discussing this. Everyone agrees that before final recommendations come forward from this Council, we must be able to specify such impacts.
• How does Council fit into the implementation process?
McHale directed members to the part of the Report about this recommendation. He said that they envisioned a Committee reporting into Council for oversight. Smith noted that many institutions have a university-wide oversight committee for their general education curriculum. The issue is whether/how this will align with the current oversight provided by the Colleges of the Arts and Sciences.
Smith said that McHale had been meeting with various groups across campus, including
a teleconference with the regional campuses. The regional campuses want to make sure
that they are more involved in the discussion in the months ahead and they are
particularly interested in making sure that advisers from the regional campuses are
involved.
PROPOSAL TO MERGE THE SCHOOL OF PUBLIC POLICY AND MANAGEMENT WITH THE JOHN GLENN INSTITUTE FOR PUBLIC SERVICE AND PUBLIC POLICY AND ESTABLISH THE JOHN GLENN SCHOOL OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS WITH A REPORTING LINE TO THE OFFICE OF ACADEMIC AFFAIRS – PROFESSOR E. KAY HALASEK, CHAIR, AD HOC COMMITTEE OF THE COUNCIL ON ACADEMIC AFFAIRS
An ad hoc committee followed the guidelines for alternation or abolition of a college (3335-5-37 of The Bylaws of the Board of Trustees). This was the first proposal to adhere to the special process associated with this rule, since the rule was established.
Halasek briefly summarized the review process of the ad hoc committee, noting that it met first in October 2004 to discuss the proposal, and then met with various groups across campus over the next seven months. The proposal was first presented to this Council for general discussion on January 5, 2005. It then was discussed with Faculty Council on February 3, 2005. Those discussions centered largely on the reporting line to the Office of Academic Affairs, and the small size of the faculty.
The ad hoc committee then asked those who submitted the proposal to prepare a five-year plan. It was received in April 2005. There was an open forum at the end of April 2005, where more than fifty people from the current School and Institute attended, and there was an informal unanimous vote in favor of the merger.
On May 18, 2005, the ad hoc committee informed this Council of what its recommendation would be – a merger, with a reporting line to the Office of Academic Affairs, for a five-year period, with annual evaluations by this Council, and then a formal review in the fifth year to then determine a long-term scenario.
By rule, the ad hoc committee’s recommendation needed to be acted upon by the Faculty Council before the Council on Academic Affairs could act. On December 1, 2005, the proposal was reviewed by the Faculty Council. Two additional stipulations were added to the ad hoc committee’s original memorandum, and with them, on February 2, 2006, the Faculty Council voted to support the proposal: 21 in favor, 9 opposed.
Letters from Professor T.K. Daniel, Chair, Faculty Council, and Executive Vice President and Provost Barbara Snyder were added to the proposal that confirmed their support of the merger and the reporting line.
Council Discussion:
• How many other institutions have a reporting line to the Provost’s Office and what is the rationale?
• To what extent does this merger link to the Academic Plan?
• When can we expect implementation (the naming of a search committee for a new Director, and the naming of a Director).
DISCUSSION WITH PROFESSOR ANAND DESAI, INTERIM DIRECTOR, SCHOOL OF PUBLIC POLICY AND MANAGEMENT, AND PROFESSOR LAWRENCE LIBBY, INTERIM DIRECTOR, THE JOHN GLENN INSTITUTE FOR PUBLIC SERVICE AND PUBLIC POLICY
• How will the merger link to the Academic Plan? Desai commented that with regard to “building a world class faculty”, the size of the faculty now is small but they will have the opportunity to grow. There will now be resources to hire new faculty. They will be poised to do a national search for a new director and hire senior faculty. The mission of the Glenn Institute will align with the mission of the University. It will train and do research in the public sector. Every aspect will “build on Ohio’s future”. To “name” the school will be helpful in the recruitment plan. It will be easy to focus on building a program that attracts the best students. It will permit faculty to develop linkages across campus. Libby emphasized that the Glenn Institute puts a strong emphasis on Outreach. Smith noted that the entire proposal is organized around the themes of the Academic Plan.
• How does this reporting line compare to what other institutions are doing? Libby said that eight of the top ten reported in U.S. News and World Report are set up similarly. Although there have been concerns expressed here about the reporting line to the Provost’s Office, it sends a signal that public service and training are important.
Libby said Glenn, himself, made a personal commitment to the
Institute, bringing to it “his name, reputation, interest and energy,”
and that has had a profound effect on the Institute. Having an
independent reporting line was an important arrangement to him.
• What is the timeframe for implementation? Libby said that they are ready to set up a search committee for the new Director, and ready for students.
The ad hoc committee moved approval, Gunther seconded the motion, and it carried with 13 in favor and 1 abstention.
Smith said that this proposal now will go to the University Senate for action on March 9, 2006.
Smith acknowledged the work of the ad hoc committee for its thorough review. It had set a high standard for a review of any subsequent proposal of this nature.
The meeting was adjourned at 4:30pm.
Respectfully submitted,
W. Randy Smith
Joyce Rankin
