6 April 2001
Faculty Affairs Committee
Student Affairs Committee
Correspondence: Christopher C. Leary, Department of Mathematics, South 324D
E-mail: email@example.com Phone: 245-5383
Comments from the Chair 419
Richard Roark Award 419
College Senate Meeting—10 April 2001 419
Mathematics 340/Biology 340—New Course 426
Comments from the Chair
Voting instructions and Voting Keys will be distributed on Friday, 6 April. Voting will end at 4:00 p.m. on Friday, 13 April. If anyone in your department does not receive a ballot or has difficulties voting, please have them get in touch with me (x 5383, email leary) as soon as possible.
Richard Roark Award
I remind you that nominations for the Richard Roark Award are due by next Friday, 13 April. The call for nominations is reprinted below.
Shortly after Richard Roark's untimely death in 1970, a group of his friends established an award to honor his memory. Richard's friends described him this way: "Richard was a special kind of human being who valued the humane and ethical above all else. He was a scholar and intellectual who treasured learning and especially books with which, he thought, every person could access the accumulated knowledge of all previous civilizations."
The Richard Roark Award is given to a graduating senior whose scholarship and community service exemplify the qualities that were so important to Richard. The recipient is given a stipend to purchase books, and the recipient's name will be inscribed on a plaque displayed in the MacVittie College Union. Please submit nominations by April 13 to Chris Leary, Department of Mathematics, South 324D.
A letter of nomination would be helpful to the selection committee.
Call to Order
Adoption of Agenda
|Chair's Report||Chris Leary|
|President's Report||Chris Dahl|
|Provost's Report||Barbara Dixon|
|Treasurer's Report||Anne-Marie Reynolds|
|Vice-Chair's Report||Jan Lovett|
|University Faculty Senator's Report||Ed Wallace|
|Central Council Report||Eric Kallin|
Reports of the Standing Committees
|Undergraduate Academic Policies, Core, and Review Committee||Ed Gillin|
Undergraduate Curriculum Committee
Second Reading (all passed first reading at the Senate meeting of 13 March)
Minor Course Revision
Honors 393 Honors Thesis (Bulletin, p. 257)
Honors 201 Honors Colloquium
Honors 310 Critical Exposition (Bulletin, p. 258)
Minor Course Revisions
Philosophy 397 Senior Seminar: Major Problems
Philosophy 398 Senior Seminar: Major Philosophers (Bulletin, p. 259)
US History Requirement Course Listing (Bulletin, p. 262)
Approval for Core Credit (Bulletin, p. 426)
Social Science Core
Hist 155 Politics and Power in the U.S.
Hist 161 Issues in American History I
Hist 162 Issues in American History II
Hist 260 Women in U. S. History
Hist 264 Immigration in U.S. History
Hist 166 African-American History
Hist 266 Civil Rights Movement in America
Fine Arts Core
Arts 102 Intro to the Visual Arts
Mathematics 340/Biology 340 Modeling Biological Systems (Bulletin, p. 426)
Minor Course Revisions
Major Course Revisions
EDUC 204 Dimensions of Teaching (Adolescent Certification) (Bulletin, p. 350)
EDUC 340 Student Teaching—Middle School Education (Bulletin, p. 393)
EDUC 350 Student Teaching—High School Education (Bulletin, p. 398)
INTD 300 (Science) Topics in Secondary Education: Science (Bulletin, p. 286 and p. 393)
INTD 301 (English) Topics in Secondary Education: English—Literature in the Secondary English Classroom (Bulletin, p. 276)
INTD 301 (Social Studies) Topics in Secondary Education: Social Studies (Bulletin, p. 346)
INTD 302 (English) Methods and Materials in Secondary Education: English (Bulletin, p. 291)
INTD 302 (Foreign Language) Methods and Materials: Foreign Languages (Bulletin, p. 313)
INTD 302 (Social Studies) Methods and Materials in Secondary Education: Social Studies (Bulletin, p. 341)
INTD 302 (Chemistry) Methods and Materials in Secondary Education: General Science & Chemistry (Bulletin, p. 363)
INTD 302 (Biology) Methods and Materials in Secondary Education: General Science & Biology(Bulletin, p. 369)
INTD 302 (Physics) Methods and Materials in Secondary Education: General Science & Physics(Bulletin, p. 376)
INTD 302 (Earth Science) Methods and Materials in Secondary Education: General Science & Earth Science(Bulletin, p. 382)
SPED 205 Teaching Secondary Learners with Special Needs (Bulletin, p. 335)
Faculty Affairs Committee
Student Affairs Committee
Graduate Affairs Committee
M.A. in Speech Pathology (Bulletin p. 434)
Present: JeeLoo Liu (Chair), Hisham Almubaid, Berkeley Briggs, Michelle Brummell, Ming-Mei Chang, Tom Feeley, Johnnie Ferrell, Amy Happ, Gregg Hartvigsen, Tamara Hurlburt, Rebecca LaFountain, Laura Stellrecht, Laura Taczak, Chris Wixson
Excused: Kim Davies, Denise Sullivan
Absent: Jennifer Guyer, Michael Oberg
Guest: Tabitha Buggiehunt
The Chair JeeLoo Liu called the meeting to order at 4:00 PM.
The Committee first looked over the final draft of the letter in support of the renovation of the Union. The draft was approved unanimously (14 votes).
Hisham Almubaid gave a report on the Middle States Self-Study's Chapter on Students. He noted that most of the items maintained a stable high approval rate from student opinion surveys done in 1997 and in 2000. (There are some exceptionally low ratings as well. For example, with "Record of ethnic diversity of the student body" Geneseo was ranked 27th out of 27 institutions in 1997 and 27th out of 28 institutions in 2000.) The two cases that showed a significant drop seemed to be "students voice in College policies" which went from 2nd place out of 27 institutions in 1997, to 14th place out of 28 institutions in 2000, and "clarity of student rules governing student conduct," which went from 6th place out of 27 institutions to 15th place out of 28 institutions. However, Hisham Almubaid noted that everything that needed improvement was given adequate recommendations. He therefore concluded that the Self-Study was successful, and that there was nothing that the SAC needed to work on at this point.
Gregg Hartvigsen suggested that we discuss the Laptop program. Being a member of the Geneseo Wireless Computing Committee, Hartvigsen was able to clarify some issues for the rest of the Committee members. He explained that there had been some misinformation circulating among faculty and students. At this point the program is only a voluntary pilot program. The College will purchase two laptop carts, each carrying 30 laptops and each costs $75,000. The two carts will go to the Math Department and the School of Business. The advantage of having these two carts is that we have mobile computers for student use.
Hisham Almubaid added that with these two carts, every classroom could be turned into a computer lab. Students learn to use these laptops in the classroom. If they also have their own laptops, the transition from lab to home computer would be much easier.
Student representative Michelle Brummell raised two concerns: (i) where is the funding coming from, (ii) will the program become mandatory?
Hartvigsen replied that what had been approved at the cabinet level was only the voluntary pilot program, even though Stephen Padalino said that in his vision the program might be converted into a mandatory program within a couple of years.
Student representative Rebecca LaFountain asked what would happen to senior students in the class with freshmen when their professors demanded laptops in the classroom.
Johnnie Ferrell replied that professors could not demand laptops until the wireless program had become mandatory and had been implemented campus-wide.
Ming-Mei Chang remarked that if lectures were done on the Internet, then there would be peer pressure to purchase a laptop even if the program was not mandatory. Rebecca LaFountain said that people would feel like losers if others had laptops and they didn't. Even professors may feel like losers if others were using laptops in teaching and they weren't.
Michelle Brummell commented that from a student's point of view, the program should never become mandatory. There is a strong possibility that a certain percentage of students simply don't need the option of buying a new computer, since they have had one since high school. Therefore, they should never be forced into buying a laptop.
Hartvigsen explained that students would not be forced into buying the laptop supported by the College. They could have their own laptops; they just would not be technically supported.
Rebecca LaFountain raised the question whether the program would take away the human support presently provided by the CIT and replace it with automatic help line. Hisham Almubaid replied that if everything was done with the same program, then there would be little problem of compatibility. And the hardware problems would be rarer.
Gregg Hartvigsen added that the estimated cost for a laptop was about $2,000. Johnnie Ferrell said that one could buy a lot of desktop computers with this money. Also, laptops could not compete with desktops in many functions. Hartvigsen said that laptops indeed would not be the most powerful computers. But parents may wish their children to have the less powerful computers so that they could easily do their schoolwork but that they wouldn’t work well for playing electronic games.
Tom Feeley commented that the cost of the wireless program could actually mean $3,000 per year for students since their laptops would need to be upgraded every two years. If he were an undergraduate student, he would be very concerned with this cost. Michelle Brummell worried that there would be a percentage of students who simply could not pay for a laptop at all. Hartvigsen replied that those students might not come to Geneseo. Feeley asked if that would bring about the problem of turning Geneseo into an elitist institution. If Geneseo is indeed going towards this direction by becoming wireless, then the vision has to be a shared institutional vision rather than being just someone's vision.
Michelle Brummell commented that the issue could become a philosophical question: whether everyone wanted to be wired up all the time. Some people only use e-mail as a necessary evil and try to avoid the electronic life style. Are we going to force these people to adopt this way of life?
Hisham Almubaid commented that it would be part of the training of a college education to familiarize everyone with the use of computers. Gregg Hartvigsen added that this trend of living with a computer would simply represent the future. He remarked that the wireless program could offer many exciting opportunities for teaching and learning. For example, the professor can use a chat room and have everyone talking to one another everywhere on campus. He also noted, however, that students at Morrisville which had gone wireless three years ago often used their laptops to send AOL e-mail to friends in the same class during class time.
Another observation Hartvigsen offered from Morrisville was that when they first initiated the program, departments were offered great initiatives to get on board. If the department required their students to participate in the program, then all professors could get a free laptop of their own. That was why the program was successfully launched at Morrisville. He also mentioned the possibility that at Geneseo, some departments may get on board with the wireless program while some others would not have to. A student representative asked about students' changing majors, taking up a minor and what they would need to do to go from a non-wireless department into a wireless department. What would transfer students do was another concern raised. Hartvigsen replied that these students would likely be required to have a laptop if the program becomes mandatory for the department.
Ming-Mei Chang remarked that the wireless technology would be good and it would represent the future. However, for now the cost is still a big concern. It is conceivable that the price of a laptop will be the same as a calculator in the very near future. Hartvigsen replied that the price would not go down that quick.
JeeLoo Liu raised the point that going wireless would bring about many symbolic changes to the whole institution. Such a transition should be carefully examined and discussed on a campus-wide level.
Tom Feeley added that one foreseeable change might be that Geneseo's reputation would go up, that we would get more applicants, and our student body would be from families with a higher socio-economic status. Johnnie Ferrell said that this change would further reduce diversity in the student body. It would not be good for some liberal arts programs in particular.
Chris Wixson suggested that at our next meeting, we discuss more on the symbolic changes the wireless program could bring to the whole institution. Our tentative guest list includes Dr. Robert Bonfiglio and Dr. Bob Simon. Our discussion will be focusing on how the wireless program would change the College's atmosphere.
The next meeting will be held on April 24th, at 4 PM, South 110.
The meeting adjourned at 5:13 PM.