Bulletin No. 15
29 Mar. 2002
276 Spring 2002 College Senate and Senate Committee MeetingSchedule
276 Senate Bulletin Mailing List
276 Roark Award Nominations
276 Letter from the Chancellor
278 Appointment to University Faculty Senate StandingCommittees
279 Minutes of the Meeting of the Undergraduate CurriculaCommittee, 12 March 2002
288 Minutes of the Student Affairs Committee, 12 March 2002
289 Minutes of Senate Policy Committee Meeting, 19 March 2002
292 Minutes of the Meeting of the Undergraduate CurriculaCommittee, 19 March 2002
Correspondence: Janice A. Lovett,Department of Biology,
Bailey 210; e-mail: email@example.com; phone:245-5413
Spring 2002 CollegeSenate and Senate Committee Meeting Schedule
April 2 Executive Committee Meeting
April 9 College Senate Meeting
April 16 Student Affairs Committee
April 23 Executive Committee Meeting
April 30 College Senate Meeting
May 7 Student Affairs Committee
Senate Bulletin Mailing List
Any member of the College Community may receive an individualcopy of the College Senate Bulletin. If you would like to receivea copy please send your name as you would like it to appear onthe mailing label and your campus address to the Senate Chair,Janice Lovett, firstname.lastname@example.org or 210 Bailey.
CALL FOR NOMINATIONS
2001-2002 Richard Roark Award
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 specialkind of human being who valued the humane and ethical above allelse. He was a scholar and intellectual who treasured learningand especially books with which, he thought, every person couldaccess the accumulated knowledge of all previous civilizations."
The Richard Roark Award is given to a graduating senior whosescholarship and community service exemplify the qualities thatwere so important to Richard. The recipient is given a stipendto purchase books, and the recipient's name will be inscribedon a plaque displayed in the MacVittie College Union. Please submitnominations by April 5 to Janice Lovett, Department of Biology,Bailey 210.
Letter from the Chancellor
The following letter was received from Chancellor Kingin reply to the RESOLUTION ON A RATIONAL FISCAL POLICY passed February 5, 2002.
Appointment to the Standing Committees ofthe University Faculty Senate
The University Faculty Senate is requesting interestedfaculty and professional staff apply for appointment to the StandingCommittees of the University Faculty Senate. While the campushas a University Faculty Senator (William Gohlman) there is theopportunity for other members of the campus to participate inthe University Faculty Senate as members of the Standing Committees.Appointments are for one year and committees meet three to fourtimes during the year. The Standing Committees and their chargesare:
Governance Committee - The Committee will concern itselfwith University-wide Governance and provide guidance on mattersof campus governance. The committee shall interact with localgovernance leaders of the University.
Graduate Academic Programs and Research Committee - TheCommittee will serve as a source of professional advice and guidanceto the Senate on matters relating to the quality, operation, andencouragement of graduate programs and research. To these ends,the Committee may be concerned with the procedures, criteria,and support of existing and new graduate programs within the University.The Committee may review and recommend policies and proceduresrelating to moral and ethical concerns of research and graduatestudies and other matters involving support and furtherance ofresearch and graduate studies in the University.
Public Information Committee - The Committee shall developand implement a consistent program of advocacy for the State Universityof New York on a state-wide and regional basis to various publics,including but not limited to - students, parents, alumni, facultyand staff, media, government, the private sector and trusteesof the State University.
Student Life Committee - The Committee will be concernedwith significant educational, developmental, social, culturaland recreational policies, programs, issues and services thataffect the quality of student life and the campus environmentof the State University of New York.
Undergradaute Academic Programs and Policies Committee - The Committee shall provide advice and guidance to the FacultySenate on matters relating to undergradaute programs and policiesthroughout the University. To these ends, the Committee may reviewsuch areas as existing and proposed curricula, standards for academicdegrees, undergraduate academic assessment, teaching techniquesand evaluation, special undergraduate programs, articulation amongunits of the State University of New York and the various aspectsof international education and development.
University Operations Committee - The Committee shall beconcerned with the effective participation of the professionalstaff in University personnel policies including equal employmentpractices and affirmative action. The Committee shall also beconcerned with the development and administration of the budgetaryand planning activities of the University, and to provide adviceand guidance on matters relating to the libraries, computing andtelecommunications.
University Programs and Awards Committee - The Committeewill concern itself with the enhancement of intercampus educationaland scholarly interests of the faculty through the developmentand strengthening of University-wide programs, grants, and awards.
Application forms may be obtained from either William Gohlman(Sturges 313, X5735, email@example.com) or Janice Lovett (Bailey210, X5413, firstname.lastname@example.org).
Senate Committee Minutes
Minutes of the Meeting of the Undergraduate Curricula Committee
March 12, 2002
The meeting was called to order at 4 p.m. in Newton 209.
Members attending: J. Bushnell (chair), K. Bajdas, D.Hill, H. Howe, A. Kline, J. Morse, M. Oberg, B. O'Donnell, K.O'Gara, P. Pacheco, J. Principe, M. Stolee, R. Vasiliev, A. Weibel,C. Wixson, J. Zook.
Visitors: S. Bailey, I. Belyakov, C. Faulkner, B. Howard,S. Kirsh, P. Schacht.
Chair Bushnell asked if the members would be willing to modifythe agenda by discussing new course proposals first, and theyagreed to the change.
The minutes of the Nov. 27, 2001 meeting (Bulletin pp. 145-146)were approved without change.
Chair Bushnell announced that any faculty member on the committeewho is interested in chairing U.C.C. next year should contacther, J. Lovett, or T. Bazzett.
A. New Courses
Acct 315/Mgmt 315 - no discussion, passed unanimously.
Anth 335 - R. Vasiliev noted that "additional support servicesneeded" was marked yes, but no additional services were listed.P. Pacheco replied that this was apparently an error and shouldbe marked no. He noted that the course has been taught successfullyas an experimental course. The proposal passed unanimously.
Writ 201. R. Vasiliev noted that the course title did notappear on the electronically submitted proposal, and I. Belyakovand S. Bailey provided the title, English Language and Culture. S. Bailey added that the course would not be submitted for coreapproval. J. Morse asked whether the current rule exempting ESLstudents who take Writ 101 twice from taking Intd 105 would remainin effect. S. Bailey asked if ESL students would still be ableto take Writ 101 twice before taking 201, or if they would take101 once and then 201. I. Belyakov replied that she would wantstudents to take Writ 101 twice before taking 201 in order tohave more practice writing. S. Bailey asked if there would bea staffing problem if I. Belyakov taught 201 in addition to herpresent courses. I. Belyakov replied that there might be a problem,but that 201 would take the place of the many directed studiesshe currently provides. Additional concern was raised about howstaffing issues might be affected by a possible increase in studentsneeding to take Writ 101. R. Vasiliev asked if a student mightbe good enough to take Writ 201 after taking 101 only once, andI. Belyakov replied that she would prefer to have students take101 twice but would allow individual students to take 201 aftercompleting 101 only once if she felt their skills were good enoughand this approach would be most beneficial to the student. J.Bushnell asked whether Writ 201 could be taken twice, and I. Belyakovsaid that it could; J. Bushnell noted that this should be addedto the course description. J. Bushnell asked how often the coursewould be taught. I. Belyakov said it would be taught at leastonce a year but she would be ready to teach it every semesterif demand were sufficient. R. Vasiliev noted that there did notappear to be a formal Bulletin description, and I. Belyakov andS. Bailey said they would create one. J. Morse felt that the coursewill help support international students' language skills andwill be especially important as these students' numbers increase.R. Vasiliev moved that the committee pass the proposal with theassumption that a formal course description would be forthcoming.The motion passed, and without further discussion, the motionto accept the course proposal passed unanimously.
Anth 310 and Anth 321. R. Vasiliev asked if the prerequisitechange would reduce the number of students taking the classes.P. Pacheco replied that it would not. The change is designed toprevent students from taking Anth 310 and 321, both of which arerequired for senior anthropology majors, without first obtainingthe necessary background in ethnography. The proposal passed unanimously.
Amst 201 - consider for U.S. History Core. It was notedthat the course was mistakenly listed on one page as a historycourse; it is an interdisciplinary course. Visitor P. Schachtaddressed the procedural issue of whether or not Senate shouldaccept or reject courses for the
U.S. History Core, and distributed copies of an excerpt from theFeb. 20, 2001 Senate meeting minutes. Schacht recalled that whenU.C.C. brought several U.S. History Core proposals to the Senatelast fall, B. Gohlman moved to object to consideration of themotion on the grounds that the Senate had in effect washed itshands of the U.S. History core requirement; since Gohlman's motionwas not debatable, Schacht could not
raise his concerns at that time. Schacht noted that the motionpassed at the Feb. 20, 2001 Senate meeting called for the U.S.History Core Committee to forward its proposals to U.C.C., andit seems odd that these motions would not go to the full Senate.Even though the Senate may not want to endorse the Board of Trustees'outcomes for the U.S. History requirement, P. Schacht saw no reasonfor the Senate to remove itself from the process of making decisionsabout the curriculum; Senate should still have a voice in howrequirements are fulfilled even if the requirements were externallyimposed. He would like to see the issue discussed in Senate andthe courses proposed last fall brought back for Senate
discussion. M. Oberg agreed, and noted that at a Policy Committeemeeting after the Feb. 2001 Senate meeting, he and others triedto argue for full Senate participation but the majority of thePolicy Committee disagreed. M. Oberg noted that B. Gohlman's actionat the fall 2001 Senate meeting was based on his understandingof what happened at that Policy Committee meeting. M. Stolee saidthe Senate had a profound and powerful reaction to this requirementbeing forced on us from outside, and suggested that the issuemight need to be discussed by Executive Committee or the PolicyCommittee. R. Vasiliev said she saw no problem with courses goingthrough the core committee and U.C.C. but not Senate; variouscommittee members agreed that it might be appropriate for U.C.C.to report these courses to Senate but not require that Senateaccept them for core. P. Pacheco felt that this might create asituation where checks and balances are distorted and U.C.C. andthe U.S. History Core Committee become more powerful than theyshould be. P. Schacht suggested that when the full Senate doesnot pass these courses, Senate is not making a statement to theBoard of
Trustees but is insulting our own faculty. Schacht shares others'opposition to externally imposed requirements, but feels thatif we must have these requirements, we as a faculty should notremove ourselves from the process of deciding which courses willfulfill the requirements; if we fail to go through the normalprocedure of reviewing proposals, we are not
exercising our autonomy. S. Kirsh noted that he served on thePolicy Committee when the Board of Trustees issued their requirement,which was very narrowly defined as history of the white Americanman. M. Oberg added that the U.S. History Core Committee rewrotethe learning outcomes for students who scored over 85% on theU.S. History Regents exam, and our more diverse course listingwas approved by the Trustees. P. Schacht noted that the view hasbecome more liberal concerning the courses appropriate for studentswho scored under 85 on the Regents. He stated that Albany canreject courses as not fulfilling the requirement, but they cannotdictate which courses are appropriate. M. Stolee moved that U.C.C.recommend to the Executive Committee that a subcommittee be createdto resolve the issue. The motion was seconded. R. Vasiliev spokeagainst the motion, saying that we can still take U.S. HistoryCore proposals to Senate, and if someone objects to considerationof the motion, the Senate
can vote against that motion and consider the proposed courses.P. Schacht agreed, adding that what needs to be decided is howthe Senate interprets the motion passed in February 2001. Step3 in the process included in that motion mentions U.C.C. but notSenate, which does not necessarily mean that the full Senate willnot consider U.S. History Core courses. J. Morse noted that asubcommittee could not force Senate to do anything. The motionto recommend a subcommittee was defeated, with two votes in favorand all others either opposed or abstaining. The motion to acceptAmst 201 for U.S. History Core passed.
Economics Minor - passed without discussion.
Human Development Minor - J. Morse asked how the changeswould affect Human Development concentrators. Discussion madeit clear that "ownership" of concentrations has not been closelydefined in official policy. After continuing discussion of thatissue and correction of two minor errors, the proposal passed.
The committee briefly discussed problems with electronicsubmission of proposals, including the time and effort requiredfor each committee member to print proposals, incomplete transmissionof some attachments (as with today's Writ 201 proposal), and theserious issue of student committee members having to charge largeamounts of printing to their limited print quota. S. Bailey saidthe Dean's office would provide copies to student members.
The meeting adjourned at 5:05 p.m.
Respectfully submitted, Judy Bushnell
U.C.C. 3/12/02 Proposal Summaries
Anth 310 - Classical Theory in Anthropology - course revision.Change prerequisites to: Anth 208 or Anth 229 and major statusat the senior level (in place of current prerequisite, major statusat the senior level or permission of instructor). Rationale: studentsmust have successfully completed either Anth 208 or 229, whichprovide background in ethnography, to be prepared for discussionsin the advanced anthropological theory class.
Anth 321 - Contemporary Theory in Anthropology - courserevision. Change prerequisites to: Anth 208 or Anth 229 and majorstatus at the senior level (in place of current prerequisite,major status at the senior level or permission of instructor).Rationale: students must have successfully completed either Anth208 or 229, which provide background in ethnography, to be preparedfor discussions in the advanced anthropological theory class.
Economics Minor - program revision. Make the minor availableto Accounting and Business Administration majors with the stipulationthat students may not double-count economics electives towardtheir major requirements. Rationale: there is no reason to prohibitAccounting and Business Administration majors from completingan Economics minor simply because it is offered by the same organizationalunit. Also, Economics majors are already allowed to complete aBusiness Studies minor.
Human Development Minor - program revision. 1) Replacethe requirement that only one course from each department maybe counted for elective credit (3 total courses are required)with a new requirement stating that electives must be taken fromat least two different departments. Rationale: the change willadd much needed flexibility to the minor and eliminate problemsstudents have had meeting prerequisites for several of the electives.2) Add Anth 101: Exploration of Human Diversity to the list ofchoices for required courses. Rationale: Anth 100 has a smallenrollment cap and this change will increase the number of availablecourse options. Add Anth 204: Human Adaptation and Variation andAnth 302: Medical Anthropology to the list of electives. Rationale:these courses will increase the options available to studentsinterested in biological aspects of human development. Add Psyc366: Developmental Psychopathology and Socl 316: Juvenile Delinquencyto the list of electives. Rationale: these courses add optionsat the 300-level, complement other normative developmental coursesalready in the minor (e.g. Psyc 215, 216, 217, 321) and strengthenthe component dealing with abnormal development. Students willnow have 12 courses (8 at the 300-level) to choose from to fulfillthe elective component of the minor.
New Course Proposals Follow:
Minutes of the Student Affairs Committee
12 March 2002 Welles 134
Present: M. Brummell, L. Taczak, C.-M. Tang, A. Gu, J-L.Liu, M. Dunn, K. Rank, E. Whitcomb, A. Stanley, G. Gouvernet,J. Garvey, D. McPherson.
Guests: T. Buggie-Hunt (Dean's Office)
The meeting was called to order at 4:00 p.m.
1. StudentTransportation / Knight-Rider: J-L Liu relayed a message fromB. Bonfiglio, that the bids received from transportation firmswere not yet complete. Bonfiglio remains confident that a bussystem will be implemented next fall. In the meantime, the SafeCars will pick up two passengers travelling together (rather thanonly one), but will pick up only at designated stops. An opinionwas expressed that no one wants to wait at the stops during coldweather, and that in some cases the Safe Car route is inefficient.
2. Sexual Assaults: Discussion began by outlining theproblem, which can be generally divided into issues of preventionand issues of procedure in the wake of an assault.
1. Sexual assaults upon students are probably under-reported,so there is a need to encourage assault victims to feel more comfortableabout coming forward.
2. Concern was expressed that female victims may feel uncomfortablemaking a formal report to a male police officer, and that it wouldbe helpful to have a female officer on call.
3. Another idea is to have an independent counselor on callwho would act as an ally and advocate to steer the victim throughthe reporting process. This role might be filled by student volunteersafter appropriate training.
4. It is possible that victims would feel more comfortablefiling a report electronically and to receive personal call-backafterward from the campus police (Note: the campus police websitedoes presently provide for anonymous electronic reporting of crimeincidents, but this feature may not be well-known).
5. Concern was raised about the absence of a "rape kit" forcollecting evidence at the Lauderdale Health Center. The committeewill seek to have a representative from the health center at thenext meeting to address this, and to discuss the resources thatare available.
6. There was discussion about how to arrange transportationof assault victims to Strong Memorial hospital for treatment andevidence collection. Neither the college police nor the faculty or staff can presently provide this transportationservice. Several students on the committee are lookinginto other options, in consultation with the local Rape CrisisService.
7. It would be very helpful to have a support group on campusfor sexual assault victims.
8. The committee will look into ways to increase awarenessand publicity for the resources that are presently available.
Preventing Sexual Assaults
1. Sexual assaults are often associated with alcohol consumption,and we need to improve awareness of this connection.
2. Given the amount of drinking that takes place and thatis likely to continue, we need to encourage behavior that minimizesthe potential for assaults that take place under the influenceof alcohol. There are many possibilities here - one idea was tosuggest that women going out in groups choose a designated non-drinkerto watch out for the development of dangerous situations.
3. We need to increase the number and variety of eveningand weekend activities that do not revolve around drinking. Manyideas were raised, including more frequent films, dances, andestablishment of a coffeehouse-type space, to name a few.
4. Better consolidation and distribution of information aboutthe resources presently available to prevent assaults and to aidvictims when assaults do occur. This would probably involve acombination of printed materials, educational workshops, and web-basedelectronic resources. We need to ensure that all the men on campusunderstand what constitutes sexual assault, and the severity ofconsequences for anyone who commits a sexual assault.
3. Other Business The Student Health Advisory Committeeis seeking a replacement for Elaine Cleeton. Faculty members ofthe SAC who are interested or who know of someone who would beappropriate (with an interest in health and social welfare and/ororganizational management) should contact Vice President Bonfiglio.Student representatives L. Taczak and M. Dunn inquired whetherthe SAC could have a student representative serve as co-chair,since student affairs are the charge of the committee. J-L Liupointed out that only the faculty-person serving as chair wouldhave a seat on the Executive Committee, so an official co-chairposition may be difficult to implement. Future discussions willattempt to define more clearly the goals and objectives of theproposal for a co-chair.
4. The meeting was adjourned at 5:00 p.m.
Respectfully submitted by Duane McPherson
Minutes of Senate Policy Committee Meeting
19 - MARCH - 2002
Present: Douglas Anderson, Gloria Dingeldein, Katy Farrell,Carlo Filice, Ed Gillin, David Granger, Alex Hassid, Harold Hoops,David Johnson, Bill Lofquist, Joseph Remy, Amy Sheldon, CassieWhalen.
Absent: Kimberly Ferris, Anthony Macula, Kathleen Mapes,Jeffrey Mounts, Yu Zhang
Guests: Barbara Howard (School of Business), Paul Schacht(Dean's Office)
Call to order: 4:05 P.M.
New business: Change in Requirements for Business Studiesand Economics Minors.
Nature of proposal: Change in requirements for BusinessStudies Minors and Economics Minors
Revised Requirement: Students declaring a Business StudiesMinor or an Economics Minor must have earned at least a 2.5 cumulativeGPA at the time of declaration.
Rationale: The School of Business requires that studentsapplying to become majors meet a 2.5 minimum GPA before beingaccepted into their program. The minor students should have similarbackgrounds if they are to be successful in the minor. The classesthat the minor students complete are the same as those taken bythe majors. (This requirement is similar to that of the PublicRelations minor, which requires the completion of a writing coursewith a B or better and a cumulative GPA of 2.70.)
Approval and Impact: The School of Business faculty haveapproved this change. No other departments are impacted, nor willany additional resources be required.
Description of the discussion:
Schacht expressed that the topic before the committeeraised two general issues:
1. How would the college like to understand the meaning of offeringminors? Is the purpose to encourage students to broaden theirinterests and education and thus should be open to all interestedstudents, or should the expectations be the same as those formajors?
2. Who will be responsible for determining if students meet therequirements, particularly if this should result in a college-widetrend of additional minor requirements? How will the book keepingbe managed?
Howard clarified that the book keeping issue is already in placein the Major/Minor declaration form. By signing, Dept Chairs indicatethat students meet all necessary requirements to declare the major.
Remy posed the question of why students should be permitted todo a minor if they are not succeeding in their major. Schachtexplained what "doing well" versus meeting minimal requirementsmeant. A GPA of ³ 2.0 is the minimum requirement of all majors.
Howard explained that the lack of the same minimum GPA requirementfor minors as majors is a problem within the discipline. Minorshaving GPA's below 2.5 do not have an adequate knowledge basefor the 300-level courses. The AACSB team was amazed that thisrequirement was not in place yet.
Hoops asked if students declare themselves as minors and thensubsequently change to majors, thereby attempting to slip throughthe minimum GPA requirement for majors. Howard explained thatalthough some students attempt to "sneak in the back door," theymust meet the 2.5 requirement or they are not allowed to declarethe major.
Remy inquired whether the change would affect any core courses.Howard replied that it would not. Students can take several 100and 200 level courses without declaring.
Dingeldein explained that students frequently work in groups inthe business courses and that there is often a noticeable inequalityto their abilities due to the lack of this minimum GPA requirementfor minors. Students graduating with a minor from the school ofbusiness reflect on the reputation and credibility of the Schoolof Business. We need to remember that SUNY Geneseo is selectingfrom the top 5% of high school students, so we should be ableto expect a minor to meet a 2.5 GPA.
Schacht clarified for the group that the minimum GPA requirementfor graduation is a 2.0 for all majors.
Hassid asked if it was justifiable to have a higher required GPAfor declaring a major or minor then for graduation. Furthermore,if all departments were to require a higher entrance GPA, wouldthis prevent students from being able to declare majors untilnear graduation?
Howard replied that students must declare a major by the end oftheir sophomore year and that the entrance requirement into theSchool of Business has existed for 15 years without causing sucha problem.
Hassid re-addressed the question of whether the standard shouldbe raised for students who simply want to fulfill an interest(minor) of study, but not become majors.
Lofquist indicated that precedence is a weak rationale for passingthe request and inquired as to why the preceding (presumably 200-level)courses aren't weeding out the ² 2.0 GPA students if the schooldoesn't want them continuing into 300-level courses. Furthermore,he asked why overall GPA is used, rather then GPA within the program.
Howard responded that the minimum GPA was a 2.75 but was lowered.She also stated that the number of minors is growing and the currentdouble-standard in the GPA requirement results in a noticeabledifference in the ability of some minors. She inferred that thereis resentment from some majors for the double standard.
Schacht asked again if the college wishes to change the purposeof minors.
Gillin indicated that he would like to allow Senate to debatethis, but not without a wording change. It was agreed that thewording would be altered to explicitly indicate that the minimumrequirement would be to "declare a minor," not "to be admitted,"which could be inferred to mean admittance into the School ofBusiness.
Schacht asked what kind of standard is appropriate for minors.Why should a minor not get the privilege of being admitted intothe School of Business if they have to meet the same minimum requirementas majors? Howard responded that the privilege is the abilityto take 300-level courses, thus they do receive the same privilege.
Howard re-iterated that the goal is to provide some quality controland that it's also a resource issue because the number of minorsin growing. To this, Lofquist inquired as to why the School ofBusiness should have a special right to impose this quality control.
Granger expressed understanding with the accreditation and GPArequirements being sought. He expressed an interest in seekingother more flexible means of handling the quality issue.
Anderson asked if the college anticipates additional departmentsfollowing suit. Schacht responded that they are not aware of any;however this might open the door for it. He acknowledged the complicationsthat arise from tiered student abilities in 300-level courses,but asked whether one dept should receive special considerationor if we should be addressing a college-wide change.
Filice responded that the Public Relations minor opened the door.
Howard responded that no flood-gate response ensued. Furthermore,Howard stated that whether philosophically correct or not, thestandard exists for majors and they seek equal requirements forminors.
Hoops inquired as to whether there are minimum competency requirementsin the pre-requisite courses.
Howard responded that departments cannot enforce minimum competencyrequirements of minors, only of majors.
Remy suggested that minors have required 200-level courses withminimum competency requirements.
Howard pointed out that minimum competency requirements wouldbe more restrictive to minors. She re-iterated that the goal isto achieve equality with minimal restriction to minors.
Examining the Bulletin, Remy commented that minimum competencyrequirements are a common practice for most minors and would preventa potential floodgate.
Hassid commented that the breadth of discipline requirements withinthe Public Relations minor seemingly justifies their minimum entranceGPA as a means of proof of ability to perform. He questioned whetherthe same proof was necessary for a minor involving a narrowerfield of discipline. He asked if it was fair to limit minors.
Howard re-iterated that students can start the minor without declaring,but that it makes sense that minors should meet the same requirementsto take the 300-level courses as is required of the majors.
Lofquist asked whether the institutional 2.0 today is the sameas the 2.0 it was intended to be, and whether it is adequate.
Howard indicated that the 2.5 requirement is based on industryrequirements for employment.
Schacht responded that a student can still graduate with a 2.0in the program, so what does the 2.5 entrance requirement meanfor employers? He inquired as to why a student having a 4.0 incourses within the School of Business, but a < 2.5 overall GPAshouldn't be allowed to declare the minor. Furthermore, he askedwhether the requirement will really guarantee the quality standardbeing sought.
Howard responded that there are no guarantees. If obtaining aguarantee was the concern, more restrictive requirements wouldbe sought.
Hoops asked whether the minimum entrance requirement should becontinued for the major.
The question was raised as to whether the School of Business wouldconsider continuing discussions to consider alternative options.The response was no.
Felice concluded the discussion with a request to vote.
Those in favor (with changes to wording): 5
Those opposed: 4
Abstained: 3 (?)
No additional new business.
MEETING ADJOURNED: 5:09 PM
Minutes of the Meeting of the Undergraduate CurriculaCommittee
March 19, 2002
The meeting was called to order at 4 p.m. in Newton 209.
Members attending: J. Bushnell (chair), K. Bajdas, D. Hill,B. O'Donnell, K. O'Gara, P. Pacheco, J. Principe, M. Stolee, G.Towsley, A. Weibel, C. Wixson, J. Zook. Visitors: S. Bailey,M. Board, S. Edgar, K. Hursh, M. Jensen, D. Showers, S. Watts.
The minutes of the Mar. 12, 2002 meeting, which were sent to committeemembers by e-mail, were approved without change.
A. New Courses
ArtH 310 - Women and Art. A. Weibel asked whetherall of the three assigned portfolios would cover the same threecategories, and M. Board replied that they would. M. Stolee notedthat no interdepartmental impact had been noted, and wonderedif the course would be included in the Women's Studies minor.M. Board replied that she would like to propose the course forthe minor, and S. Bailey agreed that would be a good idea. Boardnoted that she has taught the course every fourth semester asa slot of ArtH 300, and it attracts both women's studies minorsand non-minors. K. Bajdas asked whether there would be slidesas well as videos, and Board
replied there would be. K. Bajdas asked about the time periodscovered. M. Board said she starts with prehistoric art and goddessimagery and moves to the modern period, but does not include muchabstract art. The focus is more on issues than on particular artists,and emphasis is on painting rather than other genres. P. Pacheconoted that the course covers history of Western art, and wonderedabout the context in which goddess imagery is considered Western;he also asked whether the course might be considered for the multiculturalgraduation requirement. M. Board replied that this course is muchless multicultural in nature than several other courses she teachesthat better fulfill the multicultural requirement, such as Asianand multicultural art courses. P. Pacheco asked whether the coursewould be eligible for U.S. History Core. S. Bailey said that coursesrequiring a lot of prerequisites are generally not encouragedfor core, and M. Board added that the Art Department has coursesthat work better for U.S. History core. J. Bushnell noted thatthe form's item on whether the course had been submitted for corecredit was left blank, and M. Board replied that the course wasnot being
submitted for core consideration. K. Bajdas expressed a concernover the requirement that students submit 26 copies of class discussionhandouts, and wondered if the Art Department would consider makingcopies to save students that expense. M. Board said she does sowhen students ask her to. The proposal passed unanimously.
ArtH 386 - Theories of Art History. J. Bushnell noted thatthe form's item on whether the course had been submitted for corecredit had been left blank, and M. Board replied that the coursewas not being submitted for core. J. Zook noted that the form'sitem about additional supporting services was also left blank,and M. Board replied that no additional supporting services wereneeded. A. Weibel brought up wording concerns about the subjectmatter section of the syllabus, and minor changes were made ("largerdiscourses and frame" was changed to "larger discourses that frame,"and "shaped that field" was changed to "shaped the field"). Theproposal passed unanimously.
Intd 210 - Topics in Film (Subtitle). J. Bushnell notedthat she had asked R. Finkelstein via e-mail about the other supportingservices required, since the form did not specify them. He repliedthat they needed films, but that the English department has adequatefunds to purchase what they need. S. Bailey noted that the departmentslisted as being affected have all indicated their support forthe course. P. Pacheco noted that the course number for Ethnographyand Film was incorrect on this proposal and the proposal for aFilm Studies Minor: the number should be Anth 229 rather than219. A. Weibel noted the committee's concerns about past Dancecourse proposals' mentions of an attendance requirement and wonderedabout the statement in this proposal. J. Bushnell felt this course'sstatement was not a problem but might be considered a good modelstatement since it points out why regular attendance is importanteven though attendance cannot be required. K. Bajdas asked whowould teach the course. C. Wixson said that A. Lutkus, S. Watts,and K. Asher in the English department have prepared syllabi andseveral other English faculty have expressed an interest. R. Finkelsteinis committed to having the English department offer the courseas much as possible - at least once a semester. S. Bailey askedif consideration had been given to giving majors credit for thecourse. S. Watts said that had not been considered but seemedplausible. P. Pacheco said there was no indication that the coursewould be proposed for core, but that it
seems in the spirit of the U.S. History requirement. S. Baileyreplied that some subtitles might qualify but slot courses presentrecord-keeping problems for core eligibility and are generallynot encouraged for core. K. Bajdas asked if faculty from departmentsother than English might teach the course and if there might bemore than one slot per semester. The reply was that non-Englishfaculty could teach the course and it was not likely that therewould be multiple slots offered in a semester. The course maybe taken twice under different subtitles. The proposal passedunanimously.
B. New Programs
Minor in Film Studies. K. Bajdas asked whethera need for the minor had been expressed by faculty or students,and C. Wixson replied that both groups are interested and thatthe minor fits into the move toward interdisciplinary offerings.K. Bajdas noted that the list of electives mentions slot courseswith appropriate subtitles, and asked who would decide which courseswere appropriate. C. Wixson replied that the program coordinatorwould have to approve courses, and J. Zook added that the descriptionpoints out that any course with the word "film" in the subtitlewould work. K. Bajdas asked who usually teaches Engl 385, andC. Wixson said A. Lutkus. The proposal passed unanimously.
Major in Early Childhood Education with Childhood Educationadded. S. Edgar asked if this is essentially the same proposaldefeated by U.C.C. two years ago, and D. Showers replied thatit is. After the proposal was defeated in 2000, someone pointedout that the number of credit hours was the same as for the Elementary/SpecialEducation dual certification program, which was approved by Senatein 2000, so the School of Education looked at the proposal's viabilityand importance to students and voted to resubmit it. J. Zookasked what Curr 313 and 326 are. D. Showers replied that Curr313 is an early reading course intended to satisfy the State EducationDepartment's requirement for 2 reading courses, and 326 coversclassroom management techniques. J. Zook asked how these classeshelp students deal with preschool and kindergarten children, andShowers replied that the two courses are for Childhood Educationrather than Early Childhood Education, and enable students tobe certified to teach grades 3-6 as well as K-2.
M. Stolee vividly recalled voting against the proposal two yearsago and would vote against it now. She distributed copies ofthe minutes of the March 14, 2000 meeting at which U.C.C. defeatedthe proposal and pointed out that the vote was 3 in favor, 7 opposed,and 3 abstentions. She added that longtime U.C.C. members knowthat the committee can nitpick a proposal but rarely defeats any. She opposed both this program and the Elementary/Special Educationprogram because they require too many hours, and said that somepeople who voted for the Elementary/Special Education programdid so not because they were comfortable with the large numberof hours but to make sure the College would have an ElementaryEducation major in place. Both programs took up 119 of the 120credit hours required for graduation, assuming that students metthe foreign language requirement before entering college. Theselarge programs ignore the liberal arts tradition and also ignorethe fact that the majority of entering freshmen list undeclaredas their major and would therefore find it impossible to completethis program in 4 years. Stolee continued that passing a programthis big is not the students' choice, but ours, and that otherlarge programs on campus (such as biochemistry) enroll fewer studentsthan education. Stolee looked at the catalogs of all SUNY 4-yearcolleges and university centers and found none offering dual certificationin early childhood/childhood education. She found that odd, andwondered whether other colleges do not have a program becauseof size concerns or because of lack of market for the program. J. Bushnell asked if School of Education faculty knew whetherother SUNY units might be developing similar programs. M. Jensensaid that Geneseo's current program has this dual certification;the School of Education is just asking for the ability to continueoffering this program. She pointed out that gaining dual certificationby taking only 2 additional courses is a real bargain.
D. Showers responded to several points raised by M. Stolee. Hesaid that anyone who voted for the Elementary/Special Educationprogram in 2000 out of concern that the College would otherwisehave no elementary education programs was mistaken, since severalother elementary programs had been approved; he added that noone mentioned this concern at the time. He also questioned Stolee'sway of counting and double-counting requirements, and M. Jensenlisted some courses that could double-count. Showers respondedto Stolee's concern about students completing the program in 4years if they did not declare the major their first semester bysaying that most students spend their first year taking a lotof core courses; if they decide on this major by the end of theirfirst year, they should be able to complete the program in 4 years. He added that the program is a choice; no one forces studentsto enroll, and when they choose the program, they accept the sizeof the program. Dual certification special education is the Schoolof Education's largest major, and over 200 students have chosenit knowing the size and demands of the program.
S. Edgar challenged the claim that no double-dipping would berequired, adding that the program seems to assume that one socialscience core course would also count for U.S. History core andone fine arts course would also meet the multicultural graduationrequirement. D. Showers pointed out that Intd 203 counts as U.S.History core. S. Bailey replied that although this has been acceptedon campus it has not yet been approved by Albany as far as sheknows. D. Showers acknowledged that double-dipping would be necessaryto meet the multicultural requirement. M. Jensen pointed outthat usually at least one concentration course counts for multicultural,and acknowledged that the proposal does not necessarily addresssome of our newest general education requirements. Showers accededthat the School of Education may need to take another look atdouble-dipping.
M. Stolee expressed continuing concern about entering undeclaredmajors and noted that they would need dumb luck for things towork out if they selected this major after their first semester. She added her concern that some freshmen are pressured duringadvisement into the special education dual certification program,and suggested that enrollment may be large because the programhas the School of Education's official stamp of approval. Shenoted that large programs do not allow missteps or exploration.
J. Bushnell addressed the concern about completing the degreein 4 years by referring to the recent Middle States Self-Study,which boasted the College's six-year completion rate. Althoughshe naively considered the rate (which she could not recall) ratherlow, administrators said it was considered good compared withother institutions. Considering this, we may be overly concernedabout students completing programs in 4 years. Bushnell alsosaid that she cannot look at dual certification programs as amajor; she sees them as more closely analogous to double majors.P. Pacheco suggested that the programs are actually more liketriple majors when concentration areas are considered.
J. Zook noted that there is not a lot we can do about requirementsimposed by the State, and we need to provide good programs tohelp our students become good elementary school teachers. G.Towsley noted that his department had decided to handle externallyimposed requirements such as technology and oral competency withintheir existing program, not by adding courses. He suggested thatthere are ways of meeting requirements other than simply addingcourses. M. Jensen noted that the job market for teachers haschanged a lot in the last 5 years, and the School of Educationis trying to respond to job market issues. D. Showers said thatalthough no SUNY colleges have or may be developing similar programs,he knows that many private and CUNY institutions have programssimilar to the proposal. One Rochester-area college even offersa quadruple certification program. A lengthy and rather confusingcontinuation of the double-counting issue ensued.
M. Stolee said that through past committee service she is familiarwith the State requirements, and noted that while the State putssome requirements in the form of credit hours, most are givenin the form of content. Two years ago, U.C.C. members asked aboutthe possibility of the School of Education repackaging their programsto meet the new State Education Department requirements withoutadding courses. In spite of significant defeat two years ago,the School of Education has failed to change anything in thisproposal. S. Edgar said the argument seemed to be that sinceSenate passed another large dual certification program two yearsago, it would be okay to pass another one, but she does not considerit okay. She looks at a large program such as biochemistry, whichshe sees as essentially a double major, and it requires 95 hoursas compared to this proposal's 119. She also pointed out thatwhen our foreign language requirement goes up to 9 hours, studentswill not be able to complete this program in 120 hours unlesstheir high school foreign language courses filled the requirement. She called for truth in advertising concerning the difficultiesof completing this program in 4 years. B. O'Donnell pointed outthat with the present foreign language requirement, it is possibleto complete the program in 120 hours, and added that enrollingin this program is still the student's choice and is no differentthan students who change majors and have to go to summer schoolin order to graduate in 4 years. G. Towsley said that it is thestudents' choice, but asked if it is incumbent on us to offerthem only bad choices.
J. Zook wondered if it would be possible to consolidate coursesto meet State Education Department requirements. M. Jensen repliedthat the School of Education made cuts in the program before proposingit to U.C.C. in 2000. She added that the State now requires accreditationby external agencies, that the School of Education must demonstratestudents' performance as part of the accreditation process, andthey will be able to demonstrate links between courses in thisprogram and NCATE requirements. D. Showers noted that the proposalrequires 6 fewer hours than the School's original proposal, whichthey trimmed before submitting it to U.C.C. in 2000. He addedthat the School of Education has looked at possible restructuring,but their reasoned opinion is that this proposal best meets StateEducation Department and accreditation requirements.
K. Bajdas asked if the program would require any additional faculty. M. Jensen replied that was not anticipated since there are nonew courses. K. Bajdas noted that she has been part of the Educationprogram and can attest to the demands, adding that she felt pressureto go for dual certification not only from within the School butfrom external sources. She is very concerned about a 119-hourprogram and felt that students need to do more than just educationand should avoid dual certification programs. P. Pacheco saidthat much of the pressure students feel is socioeconomic ratherthan caused by advisors, and he felt it is important to providea marketable major. If students who are late in selecting a majorcannot complete a program in 4 years, the main problem is notthe major but the fact that they were late in choosing a major. Pacheco asked how many students are in the elementary/specialeducation dual certification program and what is known about theirsatisfaction level. D. Showers replied that no students haveyet completed the program, which was just approved in spring 2000.
M. Stolee addressed student choice, referring to the nature ofaverage 18-year-olds and their ability to make critical decisionsabout complex majors. She remained astounded that as of yesterday,no other SUNY unit had a comparable dual certification program. Given this, we have to assume either that the other SUNY unitsare stupid or that there is no market for the program. She thencalled the question. The vote to end debate was unanimous.
Paper ballots were requested and provided. The final vote was5 in favor of the proposal, 2 opposed, and 1 abstention.
With no further business, the meeting adjourned at 5:30 p.m.
Respectfully submitted, Judy Bushnell