Council on Academic Affairs (CAA)
200 Bricker Hall Printer-Friendly Version
September 14, 2005
1:00 – 3:00 PM
MINUTES
Present: Freeman, Fullerton, Halasek, McMahon, Noe (Chair), Paskett, Pletz, Ransburgh, Smith (Vice Chair), Vaessin, Valco, and Winer.
Guests: Professor Linda Harlow, Associate Provost and Director, University Honors and Scholars Center; Jill Pfister, Assistant Dean, College of Food, Agricultural and Environmental Sciences; and Professor R. Jeff Caswell, School of Public Health
Smith acknowledged and thanked Janice Musson, who was substituting for Joyce Rankin at this meeting.
APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF AUGUST 24, 2005
Winer moved approval of the Minutes of the Meeting of August 24, 2005. Freeman seconded the motion and it passed unanimously with two editorial suggestions from Vaessin.
COMMENTS FROM THE CHAIR – PROFESSOR RAYMOND NOE
He and Smith led an orientation session for new Council members on September 12, 2005.
Vaessin has agreed to chair Subcommittee A and will be joined by Winer, Freeman, Ransburgh, and Professor Nancy Reynolds (College of Nursing). Subcommittee B will be chaired by McMahon, with Halasek continuing, and with new members, Professor Richard Gunther (Department of Political Science) and Jane Evans from Council of Graduate Students.
Paskett will chair Subcommittee C, with Valco, and new members Professor Vesta Daniel (Department of Art Education), Scott Peterson, Council of Graduate Students, and a yet-to-be-named representative from the Undergraduate Student Government.
PROPOSED GUIDELINES FOR THE OFFERING OF HONORS EMBEDDED COURSES – PROFESSORS RAYMOND NOE AND W. RANDY SMITH – SUBCOMMITTEE D
GUEST: PROFESSOR LINDA HARLOW, ASSOCIATE PROVOST, DIRECTOR, UNIVERSITY HONORS AND SCHOLARS CENTER
Council members had been sent a revised proposal based on discussion at the Council meeting on August 31, 2005. Harlow reviewed the changes that she had made: each Quarter they will
elicit feedback from faculty and students involved; departments will be included in the approval process; and there will be enhanced efforts at publicizing these classes. Freeman, Winer, and Fullerton all expressed concern about the use of honors embedded sections in courses with Honors sections that already exist. This could be confusing.
It was agreed that an editorial change would be made to make it clear that this cannot be offered in honors versions of courses that have already been approved.
With that change, Freeman moved approval. McMahon seconded the motion, and it passed with 10 in favor and one abstention.
PROPOSAL TO ESTABLISH AN UNDERGRADUATE MAJOR PROGRAM IN PROFESSIONAL GOLF MANAGEMENT, DEPARTMENT OF HORTICULTURE AND CROP SCIENCE – PROFESSOR KAY HALASEK, CHAIR, SUBCOMMITTEE B
Smith noted that at the Council meeting on August 31, 2005, issues emerged that needed follow-up advice. He had subsequently met with Scott Lissner, Coordinator, Office of Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and with the Office of Legal Affairs. Smith distributed a formal response from Lissner dated September 12, 2005.
All agreed that it appears that accommodations can be made for students with disabilities and the ADA Office will help in that process.
However Vaessin and Freeman continued to express concerns about the extent to which/how the PGA would address accommodations, and particularly about students who start the program but at some later point might not be able to complete it. Pletz noted that students have to self-identify with the Office of Disability Services to make it formal and thus get resources. There also was some concern about the extent to which the PGA, or any external organization, could suddenly withdraw its own support for the program
It was agreed that the proposal should include statements relating to such issues and should also make clearer the expectation of what would be included in the reference letters that will come as part of the application to the major.
DISCUSSION WITH JILL PFISTER, ASSISTANT DEAN, COLLEGE OF FOOD, AGRICULTURAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES
Pfister acknowledged that the biggest issue relates to proficiency. They are proposing 3 ways: a score or one of two types of letter. Most students with whom they discussed this, thus far, will submit a letter, not a score. In recruiting, they are looking at all sorts of methods of bringing these students in, and, in many cases, it is going to be a letter. In terms of employment, most of them are going to be the golf pro(fessional) wherever they are working. In order to be credible, they have to have a skill level, in addition to the content the curriculum provides them.
What has to be in the letter? It will need to focus on the growth the student has had in the time the person has taught her/him, and the fact that they perceive that the student is going to be able to succeed at the skill level necessary.
Will there be any requirements for the quality of golf coaches who are writing the letters? That has not been specified. Smith said that we should have clearer specification of what is expected in that letter, however.
Freeman asked about the level formality of the relationship with the Fore Hope organization that provides potential resources. Pfister said that the Program Coordinator has worked with the organization and there will be a more coordinated effort. It is not just a referral. That also needs greater specification in the proposal.
Pfister said that there remain some complicated issues. The College will have to watch the implementation carefully and perhaps revisit some aspects of it. Obviously that is the way that all other institutions that have this program had to do it, and have chosen to do it, and it does not appear to have been an issue. If it becomes clear that many students are in the position of not graduating, the College will need to revisit the program.
Were the other institutions that had this program, before the PAT requirement, allowed to maintain the previous requirements? Pfister said that they were, and that she believes that about half of the programs now have to meet the PAT requirement.
CONTINUED DISCUSSION
Pletz indicated that despite her sensitivity to ADA issues, she believed that we cannot identify every possible situation/contingency and/or focus on what likely would be a very small number of cases. Freeman stressed that despite reasonable accommodations, there are still no assurances.
Pletz argued that we should not focus on physical disabilities, when there are other disabilities that could and do affect students in other programs.
Council members discussed comparisons with other programs such as dance, music, aviation, education, and medicine. Fullerton stressed that the issue really is that we can make accommodations. Students can still work through the curriculum to get grades toward a “degree” in this College, if not in this major.
Smith noted that the proposal had been under review for nearly a year. He summarized the discussion and actions from meetings on this proposal to date. Did Council members believe that they could support this proposal? If not, he needed to inform the College and determine how it wanted to proceed.
Several Council members asked about oversight. Following a brief discussion, it was agreed that:
• Smith would now work with the College to revise the proposal to address several issues that emerged at these meetings: elaboration of reasonable accommodation, the nature of reference letters; and
• The College will be asked to give a periodic update to Council, beginning Winter 2006, on implementation; and
• These updates will include detailed data on the program including an evaluation of the long-term impact of the PAT.
In this way, working with the College, Council can determine if accommodations/modifications need to be made.
Subcommittee B agreed to amend its motion to approve, with the stipulations specified above. Pletz seconded the motion. It passed with 10 in favor and 2 abstentions.
UPDATE ON COUNCIL ACTION (AUGUST 31, 2005) ON THE PROPOSAL TO REVISE THE GENERAL EDUCATION CURRICULUM (GEC), COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING – PROFESSOR W. RANDY SMITH
Smith said that he had met with Professor Robert Gustafson, Associate Dean, College of Engineering and reviewed the actions taken by Council at its meeting on August 31, 2005.
Included was the possibility that the Council would work with the College on other possible approaches to the proposal relating to the Arts and Humanities category.
Gustafson will discuss this outcome with the relevant curriculum committees within the College and report back to Council through Smith.
PROPOSAL TO ESTABLISH AN UNDERGRADUATE MINOR IN PUBLIC HEALTH – PROFESSORS RAYMOND NOE AND W. RANDY SMITH, SUBCOMITTEE D
Noe said that he and Smith had reviewed this proposal. They had asked for additional information – a stronger rationale, issues about course offerings, and staffing - and now were ready to bring it to the full Council for discussion. Smith noted that he had shared the proposal with Edward H. Adelson, Associate Executive Dean, Colleges of the Arts and Sciences (ASC). Adelson, and Jennifer Lando, Director, Curriculum Office, ASC had raised issues about the pre-requisite structure of some of these courses; number of intended minors to be accommodated; and the level of flexibility in course selection. It is likely that ASC would be an important source of students for this minor. Smith noted that this represents a movement toward undergraduate curricular activity from a School that has not had a history of such activity – it is currently a graduate program.
Council members raised questions about the level of detail in course syllabi, the relationship to courses in the School of Allied Medical Professions, staffing implications, and the extent to which faculty in the School of Public Health were aware of and supported this initiative.
DISCUSSION WITH PROFESSOR R. JEFF CASWELL, ASSOCIATE DEAN, SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH
Caswell said that the minor is intended to be viewed as a general introduction to public health in what they think is a Liberal Arts mode, rather than a professional training mode. Most training occupations within public health take place at the graduate/professional level so this is really more of an exposure and awareness - something that someone might take who has expressed an interest in health as a potential career but is majoring in other areas.
The structure of the minor follows the core areas that are identified by the School’s accrediting body. In Public Health usually there are five core areas: biostatistics, epidemiology, environmental health sciences, behavioral sciences and health, and health administration. At Ohio State, the School does not teach any undergraduate Biostatistics and does not have any plans to take on that task. That is done by the Department of Statistics. Often there is a survey course looking at the general area of public health, that they think might be an interesting stand-alone course for students who just want one course.
Epidemiology is a requirement for everyone because many would argue that if there is a single core course in Public Health it is epidemiology. Then students would take courses in any two of the remaining three fields, which would leave them one more elective course for undergraduate credit in the School. Fortunately, it appears that there are some appropriate courses that could be part of this minor from outside the School.
Most Schools of Public Health have begun to offer programs of some kind to introduce the field to undergraduates. Minors such as the one proposed are the most common, though some also offer a major.
In response to questions, Caswell noted that:
• since the proposal was submitted, staffing issues have been resolved.
• they expect perhaps 20 students a year, up to as high as 125 in the full complement of students.
• limits on actual class size will be based on the limits of the rooms in Starling-Loving Hall
• given how the program is structured, there is not a need for intense advising. Advising will be handled through the School Office. Caswell himself will play a role.
• they currently offer only a small number of elective courses through the School.
• syllabi will need to be shown and appropriate process steps will need to be taken to make the change proposed in two courses: 400 and 741.
• internships are not being provided.
• as the School moves to involvement with undergraduates, an undergraduate curriculum committee may need to be established.
Smith suggested that the proposal be tabled until additional information is obtained.
Parker moved to table the proposal. Vaessin seconded the motion and it passed unanimously.
ANNOUNCEMENTS
Smith noted that today is the last meeting for several Council members: Mark Fullerton, William Parker, Barbara Pletz, and Frank Schwartz. He thanked them for their service to the University.
On behalf of the Office of Academic Affairs, he thanked all members of Council for their commitment to Summer Council meetings this year. It meant that the review and approval of many proposals occurred and the academic units, whose proposals we deliberated, very much appreciate that effort. This also means that the new academic year can begin without a backlog of proposals.
The Meeting was adjourned at 2:40 pm.
Respectfully submitted,
W. Randy Smith
Janice Musson
