College Senate Bulletin

State University of New York at Geneseo

College of Arts and Sciences

 

Correspondence to Dennis Showers, School of Education, South 222C, showers@geneseo.edu, 245-5264

Note: Page numbers indicate pages as per the paper copy of the Bulletins.




Bulletin No. 7

Bul

Bulletin No. 07

Pages 95-111

March 15, 2011


Contents

Topic   Page

Senate: 12/07/10 Minutes                                                         95

Faculty Affairs Committee: 1/25/10 meeting minutes                  100

Policy Committee: 2/15/11 meeting minutes                              101

Student Affairs Committee 3/1/11 meeting minutes                    103

Graduate Curriculum Committee: 3/8/11 meeting minutes           108

Senate: 3/22/11 agenda                                                           110

Resolution in support of a five-year tuition plan for SUNY             111

 

 



 

 

 

 


 

College Senate Meeting Minutes

December 7, 2010

 

Present

L. Abdallah, B. Ahmad, J. Aimers, J. Allen, J. Behrend, C. Dahl, S. Derne, V. Farmer, D. Farthing, D. Granger, C. Haddad, P. Hamilton-Rogers, G, Hartvigsen, A. Heap, A. Hernandez, S. Iyer, R. Kahrs, J. Kernan, J. Kirkwood, C. Kreutter, A.M Lauricella, A. Lewis, C. Long, J. Lovett, D. Mackenzie, G. Marcus, P. McLaughlin, J. McLean, D. McPherson, L. O’Brien, J. Over, P. Rault, M. Rogachefsky, S. Salmon, E. Savellos, D. Showers, T. Sochia, A. Steinhauer, M. Stolee, B. Swoger, A. Tajima, L. Taraska, J. Yee. 

 

Guests

A. Gu, E. O’Leary

 

Call to order

Chair Showers called the Senate to order at 4:07pm

 

Adoption of Agenda

CSB #4 pp 55

Motion by Jim Allen. seconded

The agenda was adopted without corrections or additions.

 

Adoption of Minutes

Approval of minutes

o    October 19, 2010 (CSB # 4 pp. 44-48)

 

Senate Reports

 

President’s Report – Christopher Dahl

·         How did we get to $7.2 million in trying to eliminate the structural deficit? Those issues are difficult to discuss when you are in progress before the effect, I have shared this in greater detail with a joint meeting with of the budget priorities committee and the strategic planning group on Friday 20th in November. Three area Presidents and Chancellor Zimpher, met with members of Rochester Delegation to ask them for strong support for SUNY etc. The legislature would be inclined to work in response to real leadership from Governor elect Cuomo.  Cuomo would be sympathetic  to some structural reforms for SUNY, has endorsed in Buffalo the UB 20/20 plan and would be interested in listening to ideas that preserve SUNY and don’t cost money.

·         We do with our own, very painful and necessary process especially dealing with program deactivations. The centerpiece of such a strategy would appear now to be, a multiyear rational tuition plan. So that is probably sensible. What other portions of flexibility legislation and the Public of Higher Ed Empowerment Act will be there are considerably less clear.

·         There is no way to say how painful or unfair the necessity in making these decisions has been.  We are doing deactivation rather than discontinuance; we have 3-year period to work out what happens to programs and to try to guarantee our commitments to students, faculty and staff in programs. The assumptions, on which we operated, should be familiar to you since August.

·         We have a $7.2 million structural gap in the budget, that gap is structural which means it is permanent and a hole we have been filling annually and can only fill for so long.

·         State budget will be worse rather than better next year. There will be no new state tax dollar funds for SUNY.  Our goal should be to preserve those. The Governor has to get $7.9 billion from somewhere.

·         Tuition will be our only new revenue, but only to replace state tax dollars.

·         The bottom line is that the current base on which we are operating, the same state operations base that we had in 07-08 academic year, minus 680 thousand dollars.

·         In hopes of avoiding program deactivation, we did everything we possibly could do out of retirements, and that saved roughly $2 million. Those actions were spread equally around all portions of the college. We tried to avoid instructional lines, in terms of taking retirement lines, budget cutting of instructural staff was spread across the 3 main units, student affairs, finance administration, academic affairs, that make up 90-95% of the budget. We eliminated 45 lines, beyond that we took 9 vacant faculty lines and permanently eliminated them. Bringing savings to $2-2.5 million. We still were forced to take program deactivation actions, totaling roughly $2 million. That still leaves us $3 million short of balancing the budget, if things stay stable. So how do we get the remaining $3 million?  

 

1.     Reduce our savings factor, the required freezes, holds on all sorts of personnel lines from 6.6% to 3% (will save about 1 million dollars).

2.      We will permanently budget from income fund reimbursable funds (another $1 million—). 

3.     We will enroll 5320 students to bring in another $1 million a year in revenue.

·         Where are we now? We are trying to bring the budget down over a 3-year period, rather than a 1-year period and honor our commitment to registered students in the 3 affected programs.

·         We believe we have done what needs to be done. No one wants to go through this process again

·          I we pick away and pick 20 or 30% away from every program on campus, we will have nothing left. We have tried to maintain the college as the quality institution in its general operation we have always been. Other colleges are eliminating sabbaticals. We will be granting sabbaticals.

 

Questions

 

Jim Allen (Psychology)

One question I have is about athletics and student fees. Athletics are funded out of student fees. Is it possible that student fees could be changed so we no longer charge them athletic fees, but charge them library or computer or lab fees and use that as a source of income to save faculty jobs?


President Dahl- Short answer to that is no. Athletic fees are targeted fees. We also are limited to putting in new fees

 

Gregg Hartvigsen (Biology)- As a University Faculty Senator, we were told at the last meeting that enrollment cap would be 2009-enrollment year. I’m curious how we are going to get the extra enrollment. Are we going beyond the 2009 enrollment to achieve 5320 for next year or are we violating that somehow?


Dahl- We have leeway, because it’s the 2009 calendar year, and because that was the year we were over, and the 5320 number is as far as we can make out, we were given our cap numbers and that will be within the cap.

 

Allen- Is it correct that the cuts have come out of non-faculty positions are retirements and so forth.

 

Dahl- That is also true for those that have come out of cuts from faculty positions.

 

Allen- The people whose jobs are in jeopardy are faculty members.

 

Dahl- They are also professional staff members, and although that it is not literally the case, they are also CSEA members.

 

Allen- In the press report, there are 45 non-instructional positions, were any of those non-retirement positions?

 

Dahl- They were vacancies. We are looking at a pool somewhat larger than non-instructional retirements that we are using, but actions have already been taken, for example, to eliminate an associate dean position, a number of actions of that sort, under our system between management confidential positions and administrative positions is unclear. We have a number of people serving who in fact are members of UUP.

 

Allen- It looks like that the positions eliminated came out of faculty positions, and the savings that came out of non-instructional positions came from the lines that were already vacant.

 

Dahl- All of these positions were eliminated, and 54 were vacant or about to be vacant. None of the faculty positions, 9 of them are currently occupied.

 

Allen- the program suspensions, they all have positions that are currently occupied.

 

Dahl- That is correct.

 

Jim Allen- It looks like the non instructional positions that were lost were lines that were vacant or shortly become vacant. I’m trying to understand what the thinking process was.

 

Dahl- The thinking process was to eliminate as many non-instructional lines as possible and save faculty lines.

 

Jim McLean (Physics)-  Are all 54 positions new decisions to discontinue?

 

Dahl- they are decision made at the beginning of this fiscal year including some personnel actions, not faculty lines.

 

 Allen - Can you tell us more about what other SUNY schools are doing to handle the budget?

 

Dahl- Albany will have further cuts, they have eliminated 5 programs through deactivation New Paltz last year eliminated the nursing program and several other programs. I believe that other campuses will follow us. In addition to that, other campuses have done some interesting things. For example, Plattsburg has moved their teaching load, other places have eliminated sabbaticals, travel etc.


Showers- if you look at the SUNY Clippings Service that Greg has sent to faculty there have been 3 or 4 local pieces in the SUNY press clippings that talk about pending and actual cuts in SUNY institutions.

 

Provost’s Report – Carol Long

o    Thank you to students, faculty and staff alike, for compassion and care for colleagues and for each other.

 

o    Over the last 3 years the colleges have had to take across the board cuts, and tried to do various things with adjunct staffing and operation budgets and IFR accounts. There have been a great range of efforts to make changes to things manageable, like copying. At least three campuses talked about, increasing the teaching load, a majority of them were not giving or limiting sabbaticals or travel. One of the choices we faced here, the choice between continuing to suffer cuts across the board or take efforts to rebalance the budget.

 

o    I’m beginning to try to think about moving curricular conversations forward. I have talked with departments, individual faculty and student groups. I found them interesting, we have the wonderful letter from our faculty colleagues that raises great issues. I look forward to having that conversation going forward from concerns in the letter. What we can find in terms of innovation, economy and improvement for our curriculum together. I look forward to feedback from that.


Questions

 

Jim McLean (Physics)- A continuation of the previous conversation. Campuses- were there have been an increase in faculty load, that would seem to imply more students or fewer active faculty. Is it one or the other or both?

Provost Long- No, I don’t know, it is the case where some campuses have increased enrollment to bring income to the campuses, but I honestly don’t know

 

Chair Showers- The other factor that could play there, is to reduce number of adjuncts by assigning sections to full time faculty.

 

Chairs’ Report – Dennis Showers

o    Meg Stolee is going to be chairing UCC. Thank you for taking over that responsibility.

 

o    SOFI committee has pretty much wrapped up its work. Issues of policy and procedure that relate to things and how we will be using them as we go online should be referred to Faculty Affairs Committee.

 

Vice Chair’s Report – Duane McPherson

·         No Report

Past Chair – David Granger

o    No Report

Secretary ReportBrian Morgan

o    Absent- No Report

Treasurer Report – Aaron Steinhauer

o    For the first time in my memory, the Senate budget is in triple digits. If you are planning to donate please do so by the end of the semester.

University Faculty Senate Report – Gregg Hartvigsen

o    No report

Student Association Report – Tom Sochia

o    The Student Association unanimously adopted a new proposal for the State. It is addressed to Assemblyman Silver, Governor-Elect Cuomo based on how we feel the budget has gone over and what we hope to accomplish in years to come. It has 5 big main ideas. It is on the homepage.

o    We sent Albany 2100letters from students and 740 went to Assemblywoman Glick and has contacted director of Student Affairs and it raised her attention. Hopefully, we will be talking to her soon.

o    We have some good budget advocacy ideas for the Student Association. March 1st is the tentative date for lobbying in Albany. We are planning a day without SUNY.   If there is anything within your department that faculty and students do for the Geneseo community, Rochester community or Livingston County, any impact that is outside of SUNY, please email me at SAVP.geneseo.edu

o    Thank you Provost Long for coming to our meeting last Thursday we as students benefited from hearing from you for the 5 to 4 switch. There will be focus groups to help out with this change.

 

Undergraduate Curricula Committee Report – Meg Stolee

·         UCC moves Second Reading for Revised Course (Found on CSB #3 p. 41)

PLSC 345 Theories of International Relations

Amend: Change “prerequisites: Senior standing for Political science majors completion of PLSC 110, 120, 140, 230, 251, for International Relations majors ECON 101, 102, PLSC 120 140 and 246.

Motion Carries.

·         UCC moves for Second Reading of Program Revision. (CSB #3 p. 41)

Minor in Art History

Jan Lovett (Biology)- Will this program will be revised again or be impacted by the deactivation of Studio Art?

Dahl- We guarantee the studio art will be functioning for another 3 years, so the answer is no.

Motion carries

 

o    Next meeting Tuesday Jan 25th.

o    The Dean’s office and UCC have proposed a deadline for spring semester. Submit proposals to Savi Iyer by Tuesday February 15th.

o    On behalf of the Senate I would like to thank Bob Owens for his contributions to UCC, the Senate and the College.

 

Undergraduate Academic Policies, Core and Review – Leigh O’Brien

 We met on November 23rd,

o    Proposal from Dean McKeever regarding satisfactory progress, academic probation. We did approve an amended version.

o    Second discussion the idea of 4-5.   We have asked Provost Long to come to the next meeting,.

 

Graduate Academic AffairsDoug MacKenzie

o    GAA moves first reading of three courses:

o    Educ 463: International field experience

o    Educ 480

o    Curr 509 Methods and materials in adolescent education in English.

Motion Carries

 

Student Affairs – Jeff Over

o    Taking on the task of determining how students perceived a course load from 40 courses to 30. The impact of the proposed course shift, the makeup of the focus groups. 

o    Focus group moderators: came up with 10 questions for focus groups. Change with common core, major requirements, major electives, extracurricular activities, interaction with faculty, student workload, multiple majors/minors, service learning in curriculum, and high impact learning opportunities.

o    Focus groups will be six, Presidential scholars, Department chairs, attendees.

 

Faculty Affairs – James McLean

o    No report. Next meeting is one week from today where we will be discussing policy issues on SOFI administration.

 

Old Business

None

 

New Business

            None

 

Adjournment

 

At 5:00 p.m.

 

Minutes of the Faculty Affairs Committee

January 25, 2011


Present: J. McLean (Chair), C. Adams, J. Allen, L. Argentieri, J. Behrend, T. Bowersox, S. Derné, R. Kahrs, K. McKeever, E. Savellos

 

Call to Order

McLean called the meeting to order at 4:05 pm.

 

1.         Chair’s Report

·         It was suggested that FAC info be posted on the Senate’s website.  McLean will consult with Showers.

2.         Old Business

·         Discussion on the mode of delivery for “Suggestions for the Administration of Student Opinion Forms.”

o    Suggestion that instructions be sent out by paper, email, and posted on the SOFI Knightweb page.

·         What do we want in the online instructions to students?

o    Discussion about the importance of including the uses of SOFI and not just the technical instructions.

o    Unanimous consensus that all of Section II be included in the information given to students, particularly paper and Knightweb modes of delivery.

3.         New Business

·         Next meeting on February 15, 2011.

o    No objection to eliminating the meeting.  FAC will meet jointly with FPC and the Provost on February 18, 2011 in Fraser 202A.

·         Universal Senate Calendar.

o    McLean showed a proposed calendar of meeting dates in spreadsheet form.

o    Discussion on the impossibility of fitting all of the Senate, Sen Ex Comm, and Sen Standing Comm meetings on Tuesdays at 4:00, particularly without overlap among the various Standing Committees.

o    Motion to reject the effort to create a universal calendar.  No second.

o    Dean McKeever expressed concern that UCC should meet two weeks before the all-Senate meeting in order to give time for course and program proposals to be aired and evaluated.  She also suggested that UCC meet on different dates (when possible) from FAC and SAC in order for members from the Dean’s office to attend these various meetings.

o    Suggestion that we look at other dates and times during the work week, but the discussion quickly turned to the logistical challenges of finding other slots that would be free for the senators and students.

o    Suggestion that the calendar prioritize Senate, ExComm, and UCC slots.

o    Proposed that we link UCC and GAAC together.  And then link FAC and SAC on the same dates.  Later proposed to link Policy with FAC and SAC.

o    Suggestion that there be two meeting times on Tuesdays, beginning at 4:00 and then at 5:00.  Little enthusiasm.

o    Motion to adopt the modified calendar, including the linkage of various Standing Committees.  Seconded.

§  Suggestion that Policy be linked with UCC and GAAC.

§  Adopted by unanimous consent.

o    Suggestion that no Senate meetings be held on Study Day, particularly because it would be difficult for student senators to attend the meetings.

4.         Adjournment

·         McLean adjourned the meeting at 4:45 pm.

 

 

Respectfully submitted,

J. Behrend

 

Minutes of the Committee on UG Policies, Core and Review
February 15, 2011


Present:
B. Ahmad, M. Rogachefsky, M. Lima, D. McPherson, L. O’Brien (Chair), D. Farthing, K. Davies-Hoffman, J. Kernan, A. Tajima

Guest: Provost C. Long

Chair O’Brien called the meeting to order at 4:08 p.m.

The main focus of this meeting and Provost Long’s attendance was to clarify and discuss issues surrounding the proposed switch from 5-4 course load.  The Policies Committee was hoping to identify policies-related issues that we could further investigate and bring to Senate.

The idea for 4-credit courses has grown out of conversations surrounding the Six Big Ideas; the major rationale behind the proposed change is to strengthen student learning through “high impact” experiences as well as possibly create some cost savings for the College.

There is no current mandate to move toward 4-4 but academic departments have been strongly encouraged to brainstorm a variety of options that could maximize student learning.

Background information:

·         In response to an increase in for-profit universities, the federal government is strongly encouraging campuses to move toward Carnegie units

·         These measures are tied into academic accreditation processes and relate to student success and potential earning power in their professional lives

·         Many conversations focused on the Carnegie unit vs student seat time have been happening among college/university deans

·         There are certainly inconsistencies when measuring learning time vs seat time

·         The Carnegie unit system refers to courses (1 course = 1 Carnegie unit), not to “seat time”

·         Four semester-system hours (or six quarter-system hours) would count as one credit for a student’s transcript

·         An example of a course filling four semester-system hours could be a science course that combines three hours of lecture time with one hour of lab time

·         At a SUNY campus we could not transition to a unit system (based on difficulty in credit transfer from one campus to the next), but we can establish four-credit courses

·         SUNY Central should not have a problem with Geneseo using four-credit courses, as long as we can record actual contact hours between professor and student

·         There are many ways in which a campus can add an extra hour of contact time to existing three-credit courses, and faculty are free to brainstorm alternatives (e.g., service learning experiences as the fourth hour, recitation as the fourth hour, in-depth research experience as the fourth hour, film viewing as the fourth hour)

·         Currently, Geneseo students graduate with a minimum of 120 credits.  The hope is to increase that to 124 credits under the 4-4 model, which should allow for more flexibility on course choice (electives).

Cost savings

A savings of $500,000 has been projected since moving to 4-4 would ultimately decrease the number of courses being offered, thus diminishing the need for as many adjuncts as are currently employed at Geneseo.

With fewer courses being taught, the Provost suggested that some capacity could be built up and used as faculty/departments see fit.  Faculty workload could be adjusted (e.g., number of courses taught from semester to semester) as could class size.  Students would be enrolled in fewer classes and thus spread out among courses differently.  Mathematical derivations were presented that supported the idea of faculty teaching fewer (but longer) courses that would now count for a higher number of credits (e.g., faculty who now teach 18 credits will instead teach 20 credits with 4-4).

Faculty workload

Among the conversations on different rationale for moving toward 4-4, issues of faculty workload have not been fully addressed.  The Provost encouraged committee members to envision the extra contact hour resulting from rich collaborations established between academic departments and student services on campus (e.g., staff from campus life, librarians at Milne). Reading and research assignments that are already required in a course could be counted toward the fourth hour as long as it’s been formally structured into the course.  While the actual contact with students would not have to be the sole responsibility of faculty, overall grading duties would remain with the faculty.  Faculty will always be the guiding force to any collaborative model within the educational structure.

The Provost reminded the committee that many faculty members are already working these extra hours (in the form of directed studies and undergraduate research) but are currently not getting course credit (and subsequent release time) for it.  She suggests that moving to 4-4 provides an opportunity for faculty to equalize their workload to a degree that is possible.  As an example, banking systems crediting contact hours for directed studies have been established at other institutions and similar models are being discussed at SUNY Geneseo.  Furthermore, factors of course level and class size that affect faculty workload could be folded into a weighting system tied to the new credit system.

Next Steps

As academic departments reconfigure what their course offerings might look like in a 4-4 model, the Provost has been able to gather the creative discipline-relevant ways in which three-credit courses can be transformed into four-credit courses.  Hopefully, the different departmental plans will be added to the Geneseo wiki.

This discussion is planned to take between 3-7 years and we’re now in our third or fourth year.  Once all information is gathered and departmental plans have been re-imagined, any formal decisions will take place through campus governing structures.

Student feedback is being gathered through a number of mechanisms: a directed study with the Provost, student surveys, & meetings and discussions with Student Association’s Academic Affairs committee and with Residence Council.

No matter what the ultimate outcome on 4-4, the Provost encourages the campus to continue revisiting what we do at SUNY Geneseo that supports student learning and that keeps pace with a rapidly moving information landscape.  American institutions of higher education are facing more and more competition with for-profit academic models and universities in China, India, and Korea specifically that are interested in adopting the liberal arts model that has been so successful in the US. 

Concerns from the committee

It is dangerous to think that higher education should prepare students to walk directly into their professional careers.  The example of Intel’s on-the-job training program being best suited to train their employees served as a reminder of the different goals a university and a corporation has in the education of future professionals.


O’Brien adjourned the meeting at 5:13 pm.

 

Respectfully submitted,

Kim Davies-Hoffman

Minutes of the Student Affairs Committee

01 March 2011

 

Present: Lauren Abdallah, Kristen Gentry, Hye-Yeon Jeong, Ashley Lewis, Marilyn Klotz, Cheryll Kreutter, James McGarrah, Paul McLaughlin, Jeff Over - Chair, Patrick Rault, Dayshawn Simmons, Lauren Taraska.

 

The meeting was called to order at 4:03 PM.

 

The meetings of the focus groups were discussed, where the main issues were determination of bias by the moderators or faculty – there was little if any, and overall impressions of the different groups.  The summary of the focus group meetings and survey results are below.

 

The meeting was adjourned at 4:45 PM.

 

Respectfully submitted,

 

D. Jeffrey Over - Chair

 

 

10 March 2011 Summary of Student Affairs Committee Student Focus Groups

 

Six focus groups met in February and early March 2011 to discuss student perspective and impact on proposed curricular changes, in particular the proposal to shift from a 5 course per semester 120 credit program to a 4 course per semester 128 credit program (5 to 4).  Following the focus groups meetings a short survey to assess the validity of the focus group and individual conclusion of the student participants was distributed.  The students came from:

Fine Arts (5)

Humanities (3)

Natural Sciences and Mathematics (12)

Professional Programs (4)

Social Sciences (11)

Presidential Scholars (6)

 

Invited students, identified by department chairs/directors/deans, were directed to the Provost web site on curriculum change, as well as given a table of comparisons of typical program schedules for Geology and Psychology at Geneseo and Colgate as representative of the current system and a school with a 4 course per semester system – see SAC minutes from 25 January 2011 for this information.

 

The focus group meetings were facilitated by two members of the Student Affairs Committee, a short preamble was given in regard to the format of the group discussion and objectivity of the facilitators.  Afterward a short survey was completed by the participants to assess the focus group function and to garner student opinion.

 

The five topics of discussion were, and resulting observations:

 

1.  Was the current course curriculum and major programs, as compared to colleges/universities that have a 4 course per semester program, a factor in your choice to come to Geneseo?

 

The decision to attend SUNY Geneseo was not influenced by the current curriculum coursework that offers 5-course rather than 4-course schedules. 

Number of classes in a given major is an attraction.

 

Upon arrival, a lack of choice in courses due to a rigid schedule (as in some of the science department proposals), or an inability to pursue a minor or a major certificate in adolescent education, would have caused some to transfer.

 

Some students thought this might be an important consideration for transfer students. Concern also was expressed over how transfer credits would translate into credits and/or courses taken under the new system.

 

Students expressed concern that the new system would decrease student flexibility in course selection and how that might affect potential applicants.

 

Concerned with the impact of the new system on how full- time status is measured and how that, in turn would affect financial aid decisions.

 

2.  Impact of course change on common core.

 

Cutting down on core goes against values of Geneseo.  Some students agreed that a reduced core would be okay as long as the current categories (e.g., fine arts, natural sciences) were kept.  Perhaps “2 credit core classes” to keep breadth of core.

 

Common core helps students step out of comfort zone, learn for sake of learning, find new interests, critical for undecided majors.

 

Advisors need more knowledge.

 

Would class sizes be increased?   If yes, students see this as a negative.

 

Combination of introductory classes designed for majors with general education classes seen as negative – less rigor in field of interest.

 

Doubt was expressed that the quality of 4 credit courses would be any different than current 3 credit courses. Most students felt that faculty would essentially leave their courses the same and simply re-label them 4 credits.

 

Students thought the new system would “squeeze” students, forcing them to focus more intensely on fewer subjects. Most preferred their effort being spread over more topics, some saying that this was a chief component of a liberal arts education.

 

Core could be more flexible – perhaps five courses outside major where students choose from broad selection.

 

3.  Impact of course change on major requirements, electives, and ability to complete multiple majors/minors.

 

Four credit model would be difficult to double major and would discourage students from attempting to do so.

 

Concern that fewer courses would cause scheduling conflicts because the course might meet a fourth hour every week

Would one credit courses disappear?  What would happen to the gym electives? 

 

To finish on time, there was a worry that the course load switch will force students to stay an extra year (5 years) to complete degree/certifications. For incoming students, the course load switch will require students to declare their major upon arrival; failure to do so will lengthen their stay at Geneseo beyond five years.

 

Reducing the rigor will affect graduate school acceptances because the diversity of the current courses makes current students more marketable. The course load switch will require students to take less diverse classes.

 

Some students thought that more in-depth classes might improve the quality of their education.  Most students thought that some of the changes proposed by individual departments (e.g., the sociology department’s proposal to combine statistics and research methods as well as classical and contemporary theory) would be “disastrous” and decrease the overall quality and value of their education at Geneseo.

 

Most students thought that the new system would make it more difficult to complete a minor. And that the inability to combine disciplines would be a major drawback in relation to the job market.

 

Students were concerned that with fewer courses (poor) grades in classes would have a greater impact on their overall GPA.

 

The classes would go more in depth, but the strengths are the breadth of the classes/department (Business).  Geneseo business students cannot compete on specialization, they need to compete on breadth of education – know a little about a lot of different areas in business.

 

How would Professional programs keep their accreditation?

 

4.  Impact of course change on high impact learning opportunities, incorporation of service learning in curriculum, interaction with faculty.

 

Four credit model would not increase learning value; more focused classes would not benefit students in any way.

 

Not really giving options with fewer classes.

 

Increase class size, negatively affecting student to faculty ratio and decreasing student relations with faculty.

 

Fewer classes is not less time studying.

The faculty doing independent research do not have spare time.  An expectation that faculty engage in more high impact learning experience was seen as a zero sum game.  Students would have fewer opportunities to have meaningful interaction with faculty because faculty time would be more divided, potentially lessening the experiences.

 

There is a fear that there will be fewer TA positions because there will be ¾ the number of courses.  There is a hope for more TA opportunities to prevent an increased faculty workload from 3-hours to 4-hours per course.

 

There is a concern over a rumor that students would be restricted to taking no more than 16 credits, which may force them to take summer courses to graduate on time and hence prevent summer research/employment opportunities.

 

There is hope for a “problem session” or “recitation session” as the fourth credit of a three credit course.

 

Students were concerned that if labs remain the same number of credits, that overall this would put less emphasis on lab work.

 

Students were skeptical that the new system would lead to more learning opportunities outside of class. Actually, there was a concern that service learning would decrease.

 

Some students worried that faculty would put an increase emphasis on group projects, leading to excessive time commitments.

 

Lack of transportation reduces service learning and community activities—Expensive.  Many students lack cars, so they would need reliable, regular transportation off campus in order to increase community activities.  

 

Would there be more office hours?  If not, nothing would change.  Students suspect that faculty would not increase office hours, just use the time to be away from campus more.  For business faculty, they likely would increase their outside consulting work. 

 

We would see faculty less if we have fewer classes with them each semester

Faculty might have more flexibility and be able to spend more time with students, but if Professors are around less, this would hurt students

 

5.  Impact of course change on extracurricular activities and student workload.

 

Students like taking classes and participate in extracurricular activities – need to find balance; many students argued that they think of their education in terms of classes taken, not credits, and that having more classes was what was most important.

 

There was a common fear that the course load switch will leave little room for extracurricular activities and opportunities to have a job if the workload increases.

 

Some departments have more flexibility in their course selection that allows for more opportunities for students to be employed and be involved on campus.

 

Students were concerned that the new system would increase the faculty workload, leading to a decrease in their commitment to teaching.

 


 

EXIT SURVEY

 

SAC Spring 2011 Focus Groups on 5 to 4 Survey

 

Demographics

            ______________________          Major(s)

 

            ______________________          semesters at Geneseo

 

            ______________________          expected year of graduation

 

            ____ F      ____ M                     Gender

 

Focus Group:  Rate each statement from 1 – strongly disagree to 5 – strongly agree.  Please place any additional comments at the bottom of the sheet.

 

1 – 2 – 3 – 4 – 5            Preliminary guidelines and background information were sufficient for the focus group discussion.

 

1 – 2 – 3 – 4 – 5            For the group, consensus points were reached for a majority of the talking subjects.

 

1 – 2 – 3 – 4 – 5            All participants were able to state their views.

 

1 – 2 – 3 – 4 – 5            Geneseo should shift to a 4 course per semester 128 credit curriculum.

 

1 – 2 – 3 – 4 – 5            Geneseo should stay with a 5 course per semester 120 credit curriculum.

 

1 – 2 – 3 – 4 – 5            Geneseo should change the 5 course per semester curriculum, but 4 courses per semester is not the best solution.

 

Comments:

 

Compiled student comments from the exit survey:

 

- For me personally, without seeing a syllabus for my personal major it is hard to tell if this new system will be a negative or a positive thing.  Resources become a huge issue.

- This is all theoretical right now.  I understand that focus groups discussions are a part of the process, but it would be really nice to some guidelines/straight answers from the administration.

- I am not convinced that Geneseo should attempt any major restructuring of curricula at this time.

- An interesting concept, my concerns are mainly in regards to the school’s ability to follow through with limited facilities and budgets.

- The 4 course per semester is not a bad idea.  However, things such as student time commitment outside of class should be taken into account as well as how the change would affect the variety of courses offered and can be taken.

- My major concern involves the personnel/financial resources needed to complement the change and the logistical elements of the transition.

- A 4 course program would severely limit the Geneseo experience. I’m a senior and looking back I can’t imagine not having taken any 8 classes. If I had missed those, I might not have found a major that I like and enjoy and might have dropped out or ended up unhappy.

- The current process is adequate and changing the curriculum has the potential for disaster. I encourage the school to rethink this provision through. Dahl is ruining the school. Impeachment!!!

- I realize that there is an economic crisis and changes must be made but I do not feel that this is a good way to save money.

- Diverse [?] of courses does matter; quality of classes would decrease to less classes.

- If the school were to change to a 4 course load per semester, I think they should keep the majors the same, but cut the Gen Ed’s in half (except for language reasoning).

- The focus group went well with good discussion. But the 4-course option must be defeated.

- Consider 2 credit elective/core classes. Diversity in classes is a must! It is how we explore and ultimately find what truly interests us.

- Leave it.

- This will increase the range of difficulty for students. Freshman who have no knowledge of teachers will be more likely to drop out due to increased workload/class time. Decreases overall flexibility of what college offers.

 

Survey results:

 

 

Strongly disagree

 

 

 

Strongly agree

Preliminary guidelines adequate

0

3

4

10

22

 

 

 

 

 

 

Consensus reached

0

0

1

15

23

 

 

 

 

 

 

All views stated

0

0

2

4

33

 

 

 

 

 

 

Should shift to 4 course semester

26

9

3

1

0

 

 

 

 

 

 

Should keep curriculum as is

0

1

1

9

28

 

 

 

 

 

 

Some change, but not 4 course semester

17

10

10

2

0

 

Based on the exit survey most students agreed or strongly agreed that they had sufficient information to take part in the focus group, consensus was reached by the groups for each point, and that all views were stated.  Thus we feel the focus groups were an effective survey of student opinion.  Based on the comments on the surveys, the greatest dissatisfaction was details on what is to be changed and inability of the conveners to provide details.  As to the desire of the focus-group-students to have the curriculum changed at Geneseo from 5 to 4, the majority agree or strongly agree that it should stay as is and even some change is not looked upon favorably.

 

Summary

What Geneseo students desire:

- ability to finish in four years

- variety of classes and ability to complete multiple programs

- small class size

- rigorous core where there is exposure to areas that would not otherwise be explored

 

The majority of students do not see the change to a reduced course load degree program as a positive.

 

End of Report

 

 

Minutes of the Graduate Academic Affairs Committee

March 8, 2011

 

Present: I. Alam, S. Chen, C. Haddad, A. Heap, D. MacKenzie (Chair), S. Salmon,

 

Guests: O. Alawiye, S. Iyer, R. McEwen

 

Call to Order

 

Doug MacKenzie called the meeting to order at 3:05 PM.

 

Items of Business

 

  1. Combined degree program (BA/MAT) in Adolescence Social Studies Education

 

Susan Salmon and Osman Alawiye provided a detailed overview of this proposal and the rationale for going to a 5-year degree program. The committee was reassured that in addition to being reviewed by two standing committees within the School of Education, the proposal has been reviewed faculty in the content areas of History, Geography, Political Science, Anthropology, Sociology, and Economics, and that revisions have been made accordingly based on their input.

 

This proposal includes the following new courses:

·         INTD 530: Teaching of Economics

·         INTD 531: Teaching of Geography and Global Studies

·         INTD 532: Teaching of American History and Politics

·         CURR 503: Strategies for Social Studies Education

·         EDUC 505: Social Studies Learning Lab

           

            Discussion:

 

·         Concern was expressed that several of the new course titles and descriptions are quite lengthy which may present problems when printed in the bulletin or other electronic formats with limited character capacity. It was reported that most titles and descriptions were worded to clearly demonstrate content area compliance with specific standards and requirements specified by the State and NCATE.

 

·         The question was raised as to whether 500-level courses, some of which are required during a student’s 4th (senior) year in the program, can be taken by undergraduates according to college policy. Savi Iyer indicated that seniors in the program will be permitted to take 500-level graduate courses because at this point in time they will already have been admitted into the 5-year program and therefore will be pursuing a graduate degree.

 

No revisions were recommended for four new course proposals and accompanying guide syllabi.

 

The program proposal, along with the four new courses included with the proposal, was unanimously approved by the committee.

 

  1. Combined degree program, BA/MSEd in Adolescence French or Spanish

 

Susan Salmon and Rose McEwen provided background information on this proposal . Going to a 5-year program will allow students to focus more on their major (French or Spanish) as an undergraduate, and will provide more opportunities to study abroad or participate in student/faculty research. The program culminates in a Master’s degree in Education with an undergraduate content major.

           

            Discussion:

·         The Rationale (section VII) states that “candidates will be eligible for Initial certification in their subject specialty and also have completed the master’s degree requirements as required for Professional certification. The question was posed as to whether the program has been approved for Initial and Professional certification at the graduate level. Susan and Osman confirmed that the program is registered with the State of New York for both levels of certification at the graduate level.

 

·         Section VI of the proposal provides a semester-by-semester sequence of coursework for this particular program. Concern was raised that the new course that will mirror the old INTD 302, but be taught in the target language (French or Spanish), was listed without a specific course number. There was also no course proposal form or guide syllabus for this particular course. To make the program proposal complete, it was recommended that a formal course proposal and guide syllabus be included. Rose reported that she and her colleagues are currently working on this and will provide the committee with a review draft by March 14th.

 

The program proposal was unanimously approved by the committee pending review of the course proposal and guide syllabus for the course that will replace INTD 302. The Committee will review these materials for a final vote once they are available.

 

Adjournment

 

Doug MacKenzie adjourned the meeting at 4:00 PM.

 

Respectfully submitted,

Doug MacKenzie

Chair, Graduate Academic Affairs Committee

 

 

Agenda for Senate Meeting

March 22, 2011

Call to Order

Adoption of the Agenda

            CSB #7, pp. 110

Adoption of the Minutes

            Minutes of Senate Meeting 12/7/2010, CSB #7, pp. 95-100

Senate Reports

President                                  Christopher Dahl

Provost                                                Carol Long

Chair                                         Dennis Showers

Vice Chair                                 Duane McPherson

Past-Chair                                 David Granger

Treasurer                                   Aaron Steinhauer

University Faculty Senator                     Gregg Hartvigsen

Vice President, Student Assoc.  Thomas Scochia

 

Reports of the Standing Committees of the Senate

Undergraduate Curricula             Meg Stolee

[UCC agenda items will appear in an addendum to this agenda]

Undergraduate Policies              Leigh O’Brien

Graduate Academic Affairs        Doug MacKenzie

            First Reading

            New Program

Combined Degree Program (BA/MAT) in Adolescence Social Studies

New Courses

INTD 530: Teaching of Economics

INTD 531: Teaching of Geography and Global Studies

INTD 532: Teaching of American History and Politics

CURR 503: Strategies for Social Studies Education

EDUC 505: Social Studies Learning Lab

 

Student Affairs                          Jeff Over

Faculty Affairs                          James McLean

 

Old Business

New Business

Adjournment

 

 

 

RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF A FIVE-YEAR TUITION PLAN FOR SUNY

 

WHEREAS, the mission of SUNY Geneseo is to educate students while providing economic, social, and cultural support to Western New York, and

WHEREAS, SUNY Geneseo’s tuition is only $4,970 per year – among the lowest in the nation; and

WHEREAS, historically SUNY tuition has been anything but fair and predictable, SUNY having been allowed to raise tuition only 13 times over the last 48 years – the smallest of which was 7 percent and the highest of which was 43 percent; and

WHEREAS, SUNY, being the largest comprehensive university system in the United State, has the potential to create unprecedented opportunities for current and future college students and their families, as well as for businesses and industry, and the workforce of the State of New York; and

WHEREAS, SUNY campuses must have fiscal stability to be able to carry out this responsibility;

WHEREAS, a five-year tuition plan that is fair, equitable and responsible and keeps all tuition revenues at SUNY campuses without corresponding cuts will provide current and future students and their families the ability to adequately plan ahead and know any tuition increase will be used to enhance educational opportunities; and

WHEREAS, SUNY state-operated campuses have been the only New York public higher education sector to be subject to mid-year gubernatorial reductions without the concurrence of the legislature, and have frequently been the only part of state government to deal with the costs associated with collective bargaining agreements negotiated by the Governor’s Office of Employee Relations without state funding, thereby eroding the state’s maintenance of effort; and

THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the SUNY Geneseo College Senate hereby supports the State University’s proposal for the enactment of a five-year rational tuition plan, as well as a commitment to the maintenance of effort throughout any given year.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the SUNY Geneseo College Senate encourages the State Legislature to support this proposal and pass it into New York State Law, and

AND, BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED, that the Chair of the SUNY Geneseo College Senate shall forward copies of this Resolution to Governor Andrew M. Cuomo, the New York State Legislature and all others deemed necessary and proper.

 

Approved March 22, 2011 by the SUNY Geneseo College Senate

 

 

___________________________________ ___________________________________

Dr. Dennis Showers, Chair, SUNY Geneseo College Senate

 

 

___________________________________ ___________________________________

 

Dr. Gregg Hartvigsen, University Senator