May 24, 2006

1039 DERBY HALL

MAY 24, 2006

3:00-5:00PM

MINUTES

Present:

Professors: Lora Gingerich Dobos, Richard Gunther, Margaret McMahon, Raymond Noe (Chair), Electra Paskett, Nancy Reynolds, W. Randy Smith (Vice-Chair), Harald Vaessin, George Valco, Brian Winer

Student Members: Kevin Freeman (Inter-Professional Council); Jane Evans and Scott Pearson (Council of Graduate Students); and Elaine Yeh (Undergraduate Student Government).

Guests: Professor David Andrews, Dean, College of Human Ecology and Interim Dean, College of Education; Professor Richard Freeman, Dean, College of Mathematical and Physical Sciences; Professors Frank Schwartz, Chair and Christopher Jakeli, Department of Geological Sciences; Professors Nancy Rogers, Dean, and Josh Stulberg, Associate Dean, and Ellen Deason, Moritz College of Law; Susan P. Van Pelt Petry, Assistant Dean and Professor Karen Eliot, College of the Arts; and Jed Dickhaut, Office of the University Registrar.

APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEETNG OF MAY 17, 2006

• Freeman moved approval of the Minutes of the Meeting of May 17, with corrections. Gunther seconded the motion and it carried unanimously.

COMMENTS FROM THE CHAIR - PROFESSOR RAYMOND NOE

• He will attend the Faculty Council meeting on May 25, 2006, with Smith, to present the proposals to merge the Colleges of Human Ecology and Education, and to establish a School of Earth Sciences in the College of Mathematical and Physical Sciences. By Faculty Rule, a vote by Faculty Council is necessary before formal action by this Council and the Senate occurs.

• He will attend the Senate Steering Committee meeting on May 26, 2006 with Smith to give the Council’s Annual Activities’ Report (2005-06) and also to discuss the merger of the Colleges of Education and Human Ecology.

• He will attend the University Senate Committee meeting on June 1, 2006, with Smith, to present five proposals tentatively scheduled for action: establish a Department of Urology (previously approved by Council), and merge the Colleges of Education and Human Ecology, establish a School of Earth Sciences, establish a Ph.D. in Dance Studies, and establish a Master of Laws (LL.M.) degree in the Moritz College of Law - all on today’s agenda for action.

COMMENTS FROM THE VICE-CHAIR – PROFESSOR W. RANDY SMITH

• There were no comments

PROPOSALS TO MERGE THE COLLEGES OF HUMAN ECOLOGY AND EDUCATION – PROFESSOR ELECTRA PASKETT, CHAIR, SUBCOMMITTEE C

Valco presented the Subcommittee report. Subcommittee C evaluated a proposal to merge the Colleges of Human Ecology and Education to form the College of Education and Human Ecology. The Subcommittee submitted questions to Dean Andrews and then had additional questions and needed clarifications about the proposal. All questions were addressed to the satisfaction of the Subcommittee, and a revised proposal was submitted. Subcommittee C recommends approval of the proposal.

For the record, Smith asked for clarification on what exactly was being proposed. Valco said that the larger College of Education (COE) and the smaller College of Human Ecology (CHE) propose to merge in order to benefit from the commonalities the two Colleges have in their missions.

Smith then added that the current COE has three schools and approximately 120 faculty FTE, and the CHE has three departments with about 30+ faculty FTE. For the past year, Andrews, has been Dean of the CHE and Interim Dean of the COE, and has taken several steps with the full involvement of faculty from both the Colleges to develop a proposal for the merger. Currently the goal is to combine the three schools of the COE and three departments of the CHE and name it the College of Education and Human Ecology. At this point, there will be no movement of personnel, no change in the names of the schools and departments, and no change in academic programs. This is the first step to possible future restructuring. Faculty from both the Colleges are overwhelmingly supportive of this merger.

Gunther expressed concern that although he is in favor of consolidation for the sake of economies of scale, the proposal to merge a college with a predominantly undergraduate education mission, with a college with a mainly graduate education mission is not totally convincing. Is the long-term objective to become increasingly generic and evolve more in the direction of , say, the College of Social and Behavioral Sciences? He would like to see long term objectives in the proposal. Is it just economies of scale or is it programmatic? A programmatic rationale is not addressed in this proposal.

Paskett informed the Council that the rationale for the merger, and the overlaps, are addressed in the response to Subcommittee’s first question. On page 4, the reasons for the merger are elaborated, indicating that the faculty of these two Colleges found that they embrace a shared vision and mission that reflect the holistic approach necessary to have an impact on the well being of individuals and families. According to Andrews, such mergers are occurring across the country. The College of Education’s national ranking is going down and the merger will help both the Colleges take advantage of the synergy.

Dean Andrews is forward looking and believes that this merger will give some future direction to the COE. This merger can help improve the COE ranking. When this merger happens, it is expected to increase undergraduate enrollment, and both colleges will be able to take advantage of the synergies in the research areas thus creating more research funding.

A Council member indicated that K-12 education is no longer only classroom learning, but deals with families. Human Ecology deals with families and so the merger makes sense. Another Council member said that the teachers learn how to teach, but do not necessarily learn what to teach. It looks like this merger will be channeling students from other academic disciplines into teaching, but still not focus on what to teach. Another Council member added that today, in order to receive teaching certification, a student has to receive an undergraduate degree in the subject area in which she/he wants to teach.

Freeman observed that the COE seems to have reorganized and restructured regularly to try to revitalize its programs. Will this merger help in the long run given that the ranking of the COE has been going down? Smith noted that it has been at least a decade since the COE was restructured.

Vaessin questioned whether the merger is purely to improve the COE’s ranking. If the CHE has more research dollars, will the culture from the CHE spread to the COE thus increasing research funding there, or will this merger pull the CHE down?

Evans said that after asking questions for the past year, she has come to the conclusion that the merger is a visionary as opposed to being reactionary. The CHE is well positioned to help the COE and the COE has something to offer the CHE.

Gunther said that they should be dealing with the quality of faculty rather than just the programs, unless this merger is really designed to dilute the requirements required in the Arts and Sciences (the home of the content areas for many teachers), which will then lead to higher undergraduate enrollments in the new merged college. He needed assurance that this will not happen.

DISCUSSION WITH PROFESSOR DAVID ANDREWS, DEAN, COLLEGE OF HUMAN ECOLOGY AND INTERIM DEAN, COLLEGE OF EDUCATION

• What is the rationale and purpose of the merger? Andrews said that there is a movement across the country where these colleges have merged. They are looking holistically at education and development in multiple domains: social, emotional, cognitive, etc.

• How will this merger benefit both programs simultaneously, rather than raising the ranking of one program? The merger will take advantage of the synergies between the two programs. Although there are mismatches in the current courses, there are enough connections across the two colleges. Faculty of both colleges voted on the merger and discussed how the curriculum can evolve. It was agreed to merge in a parallel fashion without major changes.

This proposal does not include how the new merged college will eventually evolve. There will be some restructuring in the next couple of years. When that happens, the restructuring proposal will need to come to this Council for approval. There is a national movement to combine colleges of human ecology with other colleges across the country. Today there are very few such freestanding units. The most common configuration across the country is between a COE and a CHE. Faculty in both colleges saw it as an opportunity to take advantage of the synergy.

Andrews and Smith added that programmatically this is not an effort to intrude on established programs in the Arts and Sciences. Both COE and CHE have long-standing working relationships with the Arts and Sciences – in the Arts, English, Mathematics, and Geography among others. Together they Co-Chair the University Teacher Education Council (UTEC) that includes Arts and Sciences’ faculty. Any programmatic development must go through UTEC and then come to this Council.

• COE underwent an extensive restructuring a decade ago, and a restructuring a decade before that. Is this merger reactionary, or is this really a comprehensive solution identified to enhance the ranking of the COE? The merger was not supported for ranking alone, and not just for the sake of restructuring either. There is a commitment and excitement from both colleges’ faculty to take advantage of the shared purpose of the two colleges. This merger will also attract world-class faculty and build interdisciplinary graduate programs. Restoration of the national ranking of the COE is contingent upon broadening the scope of the existing college and creating a more comprehensive approach. A merger can help reach this goal.

Smith informed the Council that this is a proposal related to the “abolition and alteration” rule and special process steps are necessary. If the proposal is to be implemented at the beginning of the next academic year, it will need to be on the June 1, 2006 University Senate agenda. For that to occur, there will need to be a vote by the Faculty Council tomorrow (May 25, 2006) before this Council votes. Therefore if it is approved by the Faculty Council, an electronic vote by this Council will be taken on May 26, 2006 (by Noon) with the outcome communicated immediately to the University Senate Office.

PROPOSAL TO ESTABLISH A SCHOOL OF EARTH SCIENCES – PROFESSOR HARALD VAESSIN, CHAIR, SUBCOMMITTEE A

Vaessin reported that Subcommittee A reviewed the proposal to reorganize the Department of Geological Sciences and create a School of Earth Sciences (SES) in the College of Mathematical and Physical Sciences. The fundamental question the Subcommittee asked was: why create a new “School”? The Subcommittee reviewed and discussed the proposal and submitted a set of questions. It met with Professor Frank Schwartz, Chair, Department of Geological Sciences and he presented compelling reasons for the creation of a School of Earth Sciences. Subcommittee A was satisfied with the written responses to its questions and recommends approval of the proposal.

Paskett raised a question about the Education Programs A, B, and C on the organizational chart on page 22. The Educational Programs were supposed to be within the divisions rather than at School level. Another concern was that the Department of Geological Sciences has a Graduate Studies Committee and a Curriculum Committee. Will there now be one of each at the division level? Vaessin responded that the chart needs editing, and that Schwartz hopes that in the long term – many years hence - these divisions will become departments and the school will eventually become a college.

DISCUSSION WITH PROFESSORS RICHARD FREEMAN, DEAN, MATHEMATICAL AND PHYSICAL SCIENCES, FRANK SCHWARTZ, CHAIR, AND CHRISTOPHER JAKELI, DEPARTMENT OF GEOLOGICAL SCIENCES.

Schwartz said that the aim is to turn the Department of Geological Sciences into a School of Earth Sciences (SES). The idea is to stay in step with peer institutions. Among all science disciplines this one is tremendously broad. A school structure allows flexibility to do broad interdisciplinary research and affords educational opportunities.

Freeman added that upon surveying other institutions it was clear that for pedagogical reasons it is essential to create a School of Earth Sciences. He strongly encouraged the department to undergo this reorganization, to attract world class faculty, strong students, and external funding.

• What are the implications of this change within the department for Graduate Teaching Associates (GTA) and the way graduate subsidies are handled across the university? If there is an increase in the number of graduate students in SES, will this take away funding from other units?

Schwartz said that the main issue for their graduate students in this proposal was the school’s name. They were unhappy with the proposed School of Earth and Environmental Sciences. It was subsequently changed to the School of Earth Sciences and so the concerns were addressed. An effort will be made to increase the GTA budget. Because they want to create a larger undergraduate major program and create more GEC courses, and because the University budgeting model is used at the departmental level too, as enrollment increases so will funding for GTAs. They also foresee an increase of 15-20% a year in the research funding in the College. New directives are in place that will make sure that GTAs only teach and are not used as GRAs.

• In the proposal the Educational Programs A, B, and C are at the division level. However, why are they at the School level on the organizational chart? Educational programs are broadly interdisciplinary and although each division may teach one, the division will not be running it on behalf of the School. SES will coordinate it. If there is a mistake in the proposal it will be changed.

• Will there be a graduate committee and curriculum committee for individual divisions? Each division will manage its own curriculum and the School will oversee it. This will be similar to the current model where departments manage their curriculum but the college oversees it.

• Why create a school when our current interdisciplinary model works? The current department is quite narrow. Modern 21st century geo-science is tremendously broad. To manage the breadth of geo-science it has to become a school. A decade or so ago, the Department of Geological Sciences had 23 FTE faculty. Now it has 37 FTE. Just last year, five faculty from the Geodetic Sciences program in the Department of Civil and Environmental Sciences moved to this Department. Freeman added that the new School could/would become a center for the creation of interdisciplinary research.

• Why do joint appointments not achieve the same results? Why should it be a School? Schwartz said that the Department of Geological Sciences was unable to make decisions about anything. By taking it apart and reorganizing it, there will be more flexibility. Because of the diversity in goe-sciences, it is not possible to attract, say, top oceanographers to the Department of Geological Sciences. The next collection of world problems will be in geo-sciences. Geo-sciences has tremendous growth potential and being a school will enable the University to be part of the growth. Indeed there is a possibility of SES becoming a college in the future.

• What is the timeline for proposed “zero time” faculty appointments? Has a response been sent from Professor Carolyn Merry, Chair, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, on the Geodetic Science program Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) – an outgrowth of the recent move by faculty to Geological Sciences from her department?

Zero time appointments are not only with that Department, but with other units on campus too. Schwatrz met with Freeman to develop general principles of zero time appointments. The MOU with Geodetic Sciences has been completed. A meeting with the University Registrar’s Office, convened by Smith in next couple of weeks, will help iron out issues of course credit, etc.

Valco said that he had spoken with Merry prior to this meeting and was assured that the proposal was supported by her. Smith said that he will ensure that such a statement is included in the final set of documentation on this proposal.

PROPOSAL TO ESTABLISH A MASTER OF LAWS (LL.M.) DEGREE PROGRAM, MORITZ COLLEGE OF LAW – PROFESSOR ELECTRA PASKETT, CHAIR, SUBCOMMITTEE C

Paskett reported that the Subcommittee evaluated the proposal for an LL.M program from the Moritz College of Law. All questions submitted to Dean Nancy Rogers were addressed to the satisfaction of the Subcommittee. A revised proposal was then submitted with what had been a missing Appendix C.

Council members raised concerns about the different grading scale used for the same course that will appear on the transcript of J.D. students and LL.M students.

DISCUSSION WITH PROFESSORS NANCY ROGERS, DEAN, JOSH STULBERG, ASSOCIATE DEAN, AND ELLEN DEASON, MORITZ COLLEGE OF LAW

Rogers described the reasons for the creation of Master of Laws (LL.M) program. This program is for international students to gain comparative knowledge about the U.S. legal system and return to their home country. These students already have a law degree and are practicing in their country.

• The central concern relates to a different grading scale for the same course taken by J.D. and LLM students? Council members recommended a different suffix for the course for the LL.M students. Deason indicated that this kind of grading system is prevalent in other LLM programs. International students do not have the same J.D. degree from their home country as our students do. She also added that grading is a two step process – a raw score and final grade, and the LL.M. students will not be subject to the same grading curve. She believes that distinguishing between the two groups of students is not necessary.

• Do students pursuing the LL.M. degree typically take the Bar Exam? Some universities have both LL.M. and JD students take the Bar exam, because most of them will not have a degree from their home country equivalent to the J.D.

Discussion:

Council members had concerns about the two different grading scales for the same course. Subcommittee C moved to amend the proposal by having the different grading scale acknowledged by use of a separate suffix for the LL.M. students. Vaessin seconded the motion and it carried unanimously.

Subcommittee C then moved approval of the amended proposal; Winer seconded the motion and it carried with 11 in favor and one abstention.

Jed Dickhaut, Office of the University Registrar, indicated that he and Smith could work with the College on the implementation issue.

PROPOSAL TO ESTABLISH A PH.D. PROGRAM IN DANCE STUDIES – PROFESSOR ELECTRA PASKETT, CHAIR, SUBCOMMITTEE C

Paskett said that Subcommittee C evaluated the proposal from the Department of Dance to establish a Ph.D. program in Dance Studies. The Subcommittee met with Professor Karen Eliot, and she addressed all the questions that arose from the review. The proposal has also been through a first-round review by the Regents’ Advisory Committee on Graduate Study and the current proposal reflects input from that process. Currently there are only three other Ph.D. programs in dance nationally. Subcommittee C recommends approval.

DISCUSSION WITH SUSAN P. VAN PELT PETRY, ASSISTANT DEAN, AND PROFESSOR KAREN ELLIOT, COLLEGE OF THE ARTS

Elliot summarized why such a program is being proposed. It is a logical outgrowth of what is going on in the field. Students are increasingly asked to demonstrate more academic weight to their degree. There are also students of a caliber that warrants an advanced degree of this nature.

• What kind of research in Dance could be done? Elliot gave an example of researching a choreographer - the development of his/her work, analysis of the work, the political impact of the work, etc.

• In what areas do current academics have the Ph.D.? The current generation of academics have Ph.D. degrees in English, Women Studies, American Studies, among others.

Subcommittee C moved approval of the proposal. Reynolds seconded the motion and it carried unanimously.

Smith recognized Joyce Rankin, who is retiring from the University on May 31, 2006, for her diligent work with, and commitment to, the Council for the past 8 years. Council members then acknowledged those comments with applause. All Council members are invited to a retirement party for Joyce on May 30 at 3:30 p.m. in the second floor lobby of Bricker Hall.

Summer meetings of Council will be scheduled soon.

Four faculty members are leaving the Council at the end of the Summer – McMahon, Noe, Paskett and Vaessin. Three students also will be leaving the Council – Freeman, Pearson and Ransburgh.

The Meeting was adjourned at 5:30pm

Submitted Respectfully by

W. Randy Smith

Lakshmi Dutta