October 5, 2005

200 Bricker Hall Printer-Friendly Version

October 5, 2004

3:00-5:00pm

MINUTES

Present: Freeman, Fullerton, Halasek, Hertlein, McMahon, Noe, Parker, Paskett, Pletz, Pastor, Schwartz, Smith (Vice Chair), Stetson (Chair), Valco, and Winer

Guests: Barbara R. Snyder, Executive Vice President and Provost; Professor Fred Sanfilippo, Dean, College of Medicine and Public Health; Professor Stephen Wilson, Director, and Laurie Martinson, Program Manager, School of Allied Medical Professions; Professor Bruce Biagi, Associate Director, School of Biomedical Science; Professor Caroline Breitenberger, Associate Dean, College of Biological Sciences; Brad Myers, University Registrar; Thomas Schriner, Office of Undergraduate Admissions and the First Year Experience; Professor Edward H. Adelson, Associate Executive Dean, Colleges of the Arts and Sciences; and Jennifer Lando, Director, Arts and Sciences Curriculum Office.

APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEETINGS OF JULY 28 AND AUGUST 11, 2004

Stetson moved approval of the Minutes of the Meetings of July 28 and August 11, 2004. Halasek seconded the motion, and it carried with two abstentions.

COMMENTS FROM THE CHAIR – PROFESSOR DAVID STETSON

• Professor Marilyn Blackwell has resigned from the Council. Noe will replace her as Chair of Subcommittee A. Stetson and Smith will meet with Professor Susan Fisher, Secretary, University Senate to find a replacement.

COMMENTS FROM THE VICE CHAIR – PROFESSOR W. RANDY SMITH

• Council has an unusually large number of new members: seven new faculty and four new students. A new member orientation was held September 20, 2004.

• The proposal to separate the Department of Aeronautical Engineering and Aviation into two departments, following approval by the University Senate on June 10, 2004, was approved by the Board of Trustees on September 22, 2004.

• Smith summarized the current subcommittee assignments:

Subcommittee A , chaired by Noe: reviewing the Guidelines for Establishing Clinical Track Faculty; and proposals for Regular Clinical Track Faculty in the College of Engineering; a Curriculum Revision for the History of Art Major; and an Interdisciplinary Master’s Program in East Asian Studies.

Subcommittee B, chaired by Halasek: reviewing the proposals to establish a Department of Radiation Medicine; the new undergraduate major in Professional Golf Management; and the merger of the School of Public Policy and Management with the John Glenn Institute for Public Service and Public Policy.

Subcommittee C, chaired by Fullerton: reviewing the revision to the General Education Curriculum in the College of Engineering; a new minor in Environmental Engineering; a new minor in Spanish for Business; and a revision to the General Education Curriculum in the College of Food, Agricultural, and Environmental Sciences.

Subcommittee D, Stetson and Smith, will be reviewing smaller proposals that will be brought directly to Council for action at meetings.

• The Office of Academic Affairs’ Academic Organization and Curriculum Handbook:2005-05 has been extensively revised and is now ready for distribution to college deans, department chairs, curriculum contacts, the University Senate Office, and all members of Council. Guidelines for the Establishment and Amendment of Clinical Faculty Tracks and the Faculty Rule on the Alteration and Abolition of Units have been added. Subsections have been slightly revised for greater consistency within and among the subsections. This Handbook will be helpful to all Council members – it includes the Guidelines for most types of proposals that the Subcommittees will be reviewing and thus should be consulted in that process.

• This year the Office of Academic Affairs will require electronic versions of all proposals for review by the Council. Smith will be notifying each of the Deans of the Colleges. Ted Hattemer, Director, New Media, University Marketing Communications, has developed the website that will be accessible by approved users. Proposals, revised proposals, and related documentation will be submitted in this manner. Hattemer will be scheduling training sessions for Council during Autumn Quarter.

• Today Provost Barbara R. Snyder will be giving an update on major initiatives and answering questions. Following her visit, Subcommittee B will lead a general discussion of the proposal from the School of Allied Medical Professions to establish a new undergraduate major in Biomedical Sciences.

DISCUSSION WITH EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT AND PROVOST BARBARA R. SNYDER

Snyder commented on the major University initiatives of the past year:

• A research faculty track was created in collaboration with the University Senate and the Office of Research;

• Implementation of the Federation of the Colleges of the Arts and Sciences occurred. The President’s initiative on freshman seminars was developed as a pilot program. Snyder said that the Council on Academic Affairs and the Arts and Sciences Committee on Curriculum and Instruction will be called on to evaluate those seminars later this year.

• Work with the Council of Graduate Students (CGS) occurred to improve benefits to help stay more competitive and to recruit more graduate students. The Office of Human Resources, the Graduate School, CGS, and the Deans helped make it happen. The healthcare subsidy is up to 64% this year and will be 75% next year. There will be a new subsidy for dependent healthcare at 25% next year and it will then double. Healthcare premiums are eligible for pre-tax deductions. The minimum for stipends has been increased, although most of our graduate associates are already paid above the minimum stipend.

• In cooperation with the Office of Human Resources, we now have a paid parental leave for faculty and staff, and are working on it for graduate assistants.

For this academic year:

• A major academic initiative is the funding of graduate education as follow up to the budget restructuring process. We have been using the document Budget Restructuring Basics by former Provost Edward J. Ray, and Senior Vice President William Shkurti, that directs that there will be a change in funding in graduate education that will follow quality rather then enrollment/head count. Snyder stated that she has established a committee of Deans, chaired by Professor Richard Freeman, Dean, College of Mathematical and Physical Sciences, to recommend a process, with appropriate metrics, for assessing the quality of our 100 doctoral programs, and providing a sustainable funding model that will align state subsidy with quality.

Snyder said that she will identify priorities for investment, and asked the committee to look at metrics to identify programs that were already very good or excellent, and essential for any great public research university. She left room for programs that make unique contributions or derive particular strength from being in the state of Ohio. She also asked them to think about a set of metrics and a process that will allow us to identify programs that need to be eliminated, reduced, stabilized, or merged. The committee is to report to Snyder by the end of the calendar year. In speaking with other groups she hears a general consensus that not all doctoral programs are equal in quality. The metrics we are looking at are standard ones, but the difficulty lies in implementing them. Dean Freeman is expected to come to the full University Senate in March to discuss it.

•A second initiative is the University-wide review of undergraduate education. A university-wide committee of highly respected faculty members and one student will review undergraduate education. Snyder said that we have not really attempted to do so since the late 1980s. The General Education Curriculum (GEC) that was developed in 1988 is essentially the same that we have today. In looking back at the documents associated with the processes of that time the guiding questions remain the same. The essential question is what body of knowledge do we expect all students to have mastered? How can we best prepare all of our students? Snyder asked for suggestions for committee members from the Executive Committee of Faculty Council, the Deans, and the Undergraduate Student Government. A central reason for the timing of this review is that we have not changed the GEC since 1988 when we were a completely open admissions institution. The level of preparation of our student body has changed dramatically since that time. We are also preparing for institutional re-accreditation in 2007 and the nature of undergraduate education needs to be addressed there.

The charge for this committee is to review the general education curriculum and the number of hours required for graduation (currently 191 – although some disciplines are higher). Most of our benchmark peers are at 180 quarter-hours.

Snyder is also asking the committee to look at the appropriate role of freshmen seminars and who is teaching undergraduate courses. Snyder said that Smith had overseen a complicated data gathering process last year to find out who was teaching our undergraduate courses.

Snyder is also asking the committee to consider how well our undergraduate education reflects our University priorities, such as interdisciplinary research, diversity, and outreach, and how well it uses the technology that we have available.

For a variety of reasons we should try to increase faculty size – we have not had a net increase in faculty for several years. There has been some increase in clinical faculty, in the sciences, but mostly in medicine. In 2006 we will have $3 million in funds set aside to increase faculty size. That will be key to strengthening undergraduate education in the areas that the committee recommends. It may require hiring faculty with different expertise than the numbers we have in those areas now, because the committee may recommend a focus on the general education curriculum where we do not have enough faculty members. Faculty size increase will be in line with these recommendations as they are approved. The process for approval will include review by the Council on Academic Affairs after review by the Colleges of the Arts and Sciences. Some of the things that will apply generally, such as the number of credit hours, could come directly to Council in the year following this review.

•A third initiative is the implementation of the recommendations of the internal and external reviews of the University honors program.

• A fourth initiative is working with the Office of Undergraduate Studies and the Office of Research to create an office of undergraduate research. We want a searchable database of faculty research interests for undergraduate students to connect with faculty members about possible research opportunities. Some faculty have already linked with undergraduate students in their research. We want it to be possible for students to interact with faculty members in colleges that might not have any undergraduates. We want to oversee undergraduate research, and coordinate central support for it.

Snyder thanked Council for all the work it does, noting that she is amazed at how much work gets processed through the academic year. The University is deeply grateful for Council members’ willingness to serve.

Discussion with Provost Snyder:

• When will the new committee be appointed? Snyder hopes to appoint the Committee within a few weeks. When are their suggestions likely to be implemented? Some things will take longer than others. A change in the number of credit hours to graduation could be implemented rather quickly, but curriculum changes would take longer because faculty have to make adjustments, developing new courses, hiring new faculty, etc. Proposals would have to be phased in. For example, GEC implementation in 1988 took several years.

• Disappointment was expressed that the conversion to semesters appears not to be central to this discussion. Snyder commented that this will be a part of the committee’s thought process, but there is still a great deal of work to be done for conversion to semesters. It is essential that a “student information system” be in place, and a possible date is 2008. Snyder said that we need to make sure we continue the planning even though we are facing a difficult budget year. We need to address all the questions from the ad hoc calendar committee report of 2001. Those are mostly fiscal questions. She said that although a vast majority of universities is on semesters, there still are some excellent institutions on the “quarter” calendar. Faculty Council voted on moving to semesters in 2001 but the University Senate did not then act on that recommendation. Snyder will ask the committee to think about the possibility of curricular issues in the context of semesters. The committee may say that one calendar or other will work better for the curriculum it is proposing.

• Sometimes there appears to be a mismatch between research and teaching initiatives. Much of this Council’s time is used on academic instructional matters: name changes, or things added to the curriculum to bolster student enrollment, but so few things are done to address the research enterprise. Should Council not be giving more attention to research matters?

Snyder said that she presumed that Council has done so through its review of research centers/institutes and/or graduate program changes. We had a very active period of new center development in the mid-late 1990s, but given recent funding issues, there has been less activity.

Smith commented that most of Council’s activities are curricular in nature – that is a large part of the responsibilities of the Council as specified in faculty rules. He concurred with Snyder that the closest Council gets to research initiatives is through review of centers/institutes. However, we may want to think about what kind of relationship this Council could have with the University Senate Research Committee. Snyder said that she is asking this new committee to work on the role that research can have with undergraduate education and expects that the committee will want to make sure there is a greater connection between the two.

Snyder said that with regard to name changes, she prefers to think that the changes communicate more accurately what a program is, so that students have a truer impression of what is going on. Course and curriculum changes may better address societal issues and the changing interest of students. Smith concurred.

Smith commented that he and Vice Provost and Dean for Undergraduate Studies, Martha Garland had attended a meeting on general education at land grant universities, at the University of Idaho (September 24-25, 2004) where they had a chance to learn about ongoing activity. It was an informative meeting. He said general education seems to be seen as more of an umbrella term that includes the general education curriculum, freshmen seminars, research experiences and service learning. Smith indicated that he and Garland should be able to help share some of this information with the Council and the Provost’s new committee.

DISCUSSION OF THE PROPOSAL FROM THE SCHOOL OF ALLIED MEDICAL PROFESSIONS TO ESTABLISH AN UNDERGRADUATE MAJOR IN BIOMEDICAL SCIENCES – PROFESSOR E. KAY HALASEK, CHAIR, SUBCOMMITTEE B

Stetson said that given the complex nature of the proposal from the School of Allied Medical Professions for a new undergraduate major in Biomedical Sciences, and despite the fact that Subcommittee B was recommending approval, he and Smith believed that today there should be general discussion – no action. Indeed, the academic units that had expressed concerns about this proposal had only just been given the current version and had not been able to review it. Professors Caroline Breitenberger, Associate Dean, College of Biological Sciences, and Professor Edward H. Adelson, Associate Executive Associate Dean, Colleges of the Arts and Sciences were in attendance today.

Halasek, Chair, Subcommittee B then led the discussion. She outlined the nature of the Subcommittee review process over the past four months, noting that the full membership of the Subcommittee had changed during this period. Following a general review by the previous members of the Subcommittee during June-July, by mid-August the current Subcommittee members had assumed responsibility for the proposal and had interacted directly with Professor Stephen Wilson, Director, School of Allied Medical Professions. A new version (September 7, 2004) of the proposal was then submitted with supplements. The Subcommittee was now ready to recommend approval. However given the level of opposition to this proposal by colleges within the Colleges of the Arts and Sciences, today’s general discussion was important.

There had been a number of concerns about this proposal: the nature of the general education curriculum; the number of electives students had available to them (16); duplication with existing programs; and the fact that it does not give the breadth of knowledge that many believe is currently expected for admission to medical and professional schools. There also had been questions about the availability of internships and study abroad. In terms of research, students will work in laboratories located in the College of Medicine.

Halasek said that there are a number of biomedical science majors across the country and the Subcommittee had asked how this one was unique and had asked if the College had any information on similar programs from other universities. It did not. Her own personal search on the internet looking for majors of this type, revealed only one other program that had an undergraduate major in biological sciences situated in the College of Medicine. All other programs of this nature are at smaller institutions and are housed in Colleges of Veterinary Medicine, Biological Sciences or Arts and Sciences, not in Colleges of Medicine.

The School is limiting the number of students in the program to 25. The program is meant to encourage students who might not otherwise apply to The Ohio State University.

In the first few years this program looks like existing ones, but in the third and fourth years differences in the program are evident - seminars, special topics in biomedical research, and concept of health care. There was concern that it limited students to one year of research – but students will be encouraged to participate in research for more than one year. The School is moving toward fulfilling the requirement for the third year writing level.

DISCUSSION WITH GUESTS: PROFESSOR FRED SANFILIPPO, DEAN, COLLEGE OF MEDICINE AND PUBLIC HEALTH; PROFESSOR BRUCE BIAGI, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, SCHOOL OF BIOMEDICAL SCIENCE; PROFESSOR STEPHEN WILSON, DIRECTOR, AND LAURIE MARTINSON, PROGRAM MANAGER, SCHOOL OF ALLIED MEDICAL PROFESSIONS.

Wilson noted that this proposal has been under discussion form more than a year, and that they have tried to respond to issues - the College of Biological Sciences specifically and the Colleges of the Arts and Sciences more generally. He said that Sanfilippo had talked with Subcommittee B about the need for the proposal and where the major would fit into his College.

Sanfilippo said that they wanted to do something unusual, something that would provide a different context for this major - a medical context, a disease context, an application context. It would be one that would provide a variation in coursework that would interface with the undergraduate education experience, that would attract high ability students, and that would set a new paradigm.

• Council members noted that the real rationale for this major seems unclear. The current proposal does not adequately convey it in the same terms that Sanfilippo had just described. After hearing his explanation, it now appears that this major is to provide an “alternative” approach to existing biomedical program options.

• Where is funding coming from, and how will that affect other programs? The College of Medicine and Public Health would fund the program, and with only 25 students it would not have to be a major investment. Sanfilippo said that he did not know about the “need” for such a program, but it could attract many good students from around the country. A program manager has already been hired. She will give it full attention. Space will be in the College of Medicine and Public Health, in the School of Biomedical Sciences area next to graduate and medical students. A number of courses will be developed and covered by that faculty. The research entity and the core content will be brought together in an interdisciplinary way. The College will “break even” in about three years.

• If there is no comparable program in the country, why is this new major better than existing programs here or elsewhere? It is a way to offer something different that may attract students. The College has done honors recruitment but feels that this would be offering something distinctive.

• The program would train more clinician scientists. Might this be included in the rationale if there is a shortage of clinicians? Yes, it could be.

• It is focused, but how do you address the criticism that it is not well-rounded? It does seem to be for “pre-med” students. Sanfilippo said that the premise that it is a pre-med track is not entirely true. Students could go into graduate school, nursing, or other fields. Indeed if they do not, the program ultimately needs to be changed. However, we need the focus on the disease aspects of biomedicine at the undergraduate level with the ability for students to gain an appreciation for research at that level. The College has tried to make it as flexible as possible with the GEC requirements, and students still have the same number of electives as in Arts and Sciences. In other professional B.S. programs, we do not require a foreign language.

• The College is looking for diversity in students coming into medical school as well.

• Students have as much opportunity to take electives as in other programs and advising will help with that issue.

• Discussion continued on fulfilling the GEC in the fourth year. This seems late. Wilson said that there are reasons for doing it that way – in the third year some students will be taking the MCAT. We could rearrange some things to make it possible for students to take their GEC courses earlier. In general there is not a concern, since it is likely that many students entering this program will have some level of Advanced Placement (AP) credit and that will then provide openings for reconsidering GEC course placement within the program.

• Questions were raised about the perceived level of rigor of the courses specified as Healthcare I, II and III, relative to others in the major and given the level of academic preparedness of the students. Wilson said that these would be rigorous but more importantly, evidence shows that these are courses that are needed. Students need to know about healthcare policy, issues, and implications. They met with the Associate Dean in the College of Medicine and Public Health and were told that students also need courses in communications and ethics.

• What about outside opportunities and support for these students a year or two after this program? What about summer experiences? There is an opportunity for a summer experience at Johns Hopkins University but nothing formal has been established yet. The College will be networking the first year or two, and then hopes to offer some opportunities.

• Why are there only 25 students? Although the College would like to admit more, it wants to be sure that it proceeds cautiously and can support the students, and can align the faculty with the courses that will be taught. It wants to make sure it has the laboratories and principle investigators and can provide continuity.

• Will you accept transfer students? Yes because some students may leave the program after, say, a year, and openings will be available. They will accept external transfer students as freshmen.

• Will this have negative impacts on students in biological sciences? That is not a concern. This is a program that offers an alternative to a few students and the research opportunities now available to the biological sciences students should be able to be accommodated with increased numbers of faculty in the College of Medicine and Public Health.

• This will require excellent advising. Who will be doing it? We will have faculty major advisers. There will be honors advising. We will make sure that core faculty who are experienced do it.

• Will the 25 students ever work together? Yes. A goal is to offer laboratory sessions that will bring them together. The College also would like to have them interact with graduate students. A goal is to have them report to each other quarterly, and they will work as a group.

• Will there be an honors section? No, but some student will be honors students.

Council Discussion:

Stetson said that discussion of this proposal will continue at a future meeting after Council has had a chance to get responses from the College of Biological Sciences and the Colleges of the Arts and Sciences.

The meeting was adjourned at 5:00pm.

Respectfully submitted,

W. Randy Smith

Joyce Rankin