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. 6

 

 

Bulletin No. 06

Pages 73 - 94

February 15, 2011

 

Contents

Topic                                                                                                    Page

Senate: 11/16/10 Minutes                                                                       73

Faculty Affairs Committee: 12/14/10 meeting minutes                            80

Student Affairs Committee1/25/11 meeting minutes                                81

Senate: 2/22/11 agenda                                                                           93

                 



 

 

 

 


College Senate Meeting Minutes

November 16, 2010

 

Present

L. Abdallah, B. Ahmad, J. Aimers, J. Allen, T. Bazzett, J. Behrend, S.A. Brainard, A. Bretl, C. Dahl, S. Derne, J. Dolce, V. Farmer, D. Farthing, K. Gentry, D. Granger, P. Hamilton-Rogers, K. Hannam, B. Harrison, G, Hartvigsen, A. Heap, S. Iyer, H.Y. Jeong, R. Kahrs, J. Kernan, J. Kirkwood, C. Leary, K. Levison, A. Lewis, M. Liwanag, C. Long, J. Lovett, D. Mackenzie, G. Marcus, V. Markowski, J. McGarrah, P. McLaughlin, J. McLean, D. McPherson, M. Mitschow, B. Morgan, L. O’Brien, T. Ocon, J. Over, B. Owens, P. Rault, M. Rogachefsky, S. Salmon, E. Savellos, B. Semel, A. Sheldon, D. Showers, T. Sochia, A. Steinhauer, M. Stolee, B. Swoger, A. Tajima, L. Taraska, T. Underwood,

 

Guests

O. Alawiye, J. Grace, K. Hoffman, E. O’Leary

 

Call to order

Chair Showers called the Senate to order at 4:05pm

 

Adoption of Agenda

CSB #3 pp 40 and 41

Motion by Jeff Over

The agenda was adopted without corrections or additions.

 

Adoption of Minutes

Approval of minutes

o   April 27, 2010 (CSB #3 pp. 31-35)

o   Motion to adopt the minutes. Motion Carries.

           
Introduction of Guests:

·      Chancellor has taken the next step in implementing the SUNY Strategic Plan

·      Work through a series of teams. Innovation and Transformation Teams

·      Some representatives are here to say a few words on what their team is for and open communication. If you have questions or want to share information contact representatives.

 

·      SUNY and the World (Jeremy Grace)

o   Preliminary conversation- what are the benchmarks and implications that we are looking at within SUNY and NY as a whole. Issues like measuring incoming international students (educational impact and economic impact in the community). Role of faculty, research, use of grant money, and study abroad across SUNY campuses.

 

·      SUNY and Energy SMART NY (Dennis Showers)
Looking at SUNY internally as s system and look how we can use energy more efficiently and energy research into brining incentives and energy sustainability initiatives. The outward looking part is how do we take all the collected expertise that SUNY has within in the system and use it within the state to transform how NY uses energy. I met with the sustainability task force and talked about what we should be doing on campus, initiatives we should take.  Opportunities to leverage the task force to get us into schools and public areas were we could do educational related things and energy.

 

·      Academic Excellence (Paul Schacht)

o   Challenge is to find way to measure academic excellence of the system.  Identify measures that would help single out what is about the graduate of SUNY that sets part from another graduate. High impact learning experiences, bringing theory to practice project, internships, Service Learning, and research with faculty. What is special about SUNY Graduate? We also talked about how to find ways to measures academic excellence to advertise how well we do things and how we can do things better. With assessment, we are looking at student learning to enable us to figure out where we need to improve.

Chris Leary (Math) – Am I correct that the document of power of SUNY mission that happened last year.

Dennis Showers (Yes)

o   Am I also correct the document last year did not talk about academic excellence? My question to your team is: are you relevant in the context in what is going on. Is this something that is important to the Chancellor and also to the board.

o   Paul- I think so, the transformation teams don’t line up one-to-one with the systems 6 big ideas. I don’t know where in the strategic thinking process these teams were born in the language, but the assumption is that all of the things that the transformation teams are thinking about have implications for all 6 of the innovations areas and 6 big ideas. I am optimistic that the Chancellor and the Provost are invested in this and academic excellence matters to them.

o   Chris Leary- Thank you.

·      Innovative Instruction (Savi Iyer)

o   Handed out charts that are all inter- connected. We talked about a bunch of existing programs a center for professional development, again the idea is to pool resources. The main thing is pooling library resources, which is already happening. Another thing that came up is Online Courses, international collaboration. The bulk of the meeting was talked about the online courses on different campuses there was some discussion on the contact policy that should be modified. Also talking about a portal for online courses at other campuses as a way to advertise at other campuses (not just SUNY). We talked about metrics as well, graduation rates. If there were online courses over the summer (GEN ED or others) that could help with graduation rates. We have a meeting Thursday (teleconference mode).

 

o   Jim Allen (psych)-

o   How much will local campuses have in accepting the online course proposals, is this something that is mandated.

 

o   Iyer- Not really, summer online expanded with increased number of courses offered. This is a time where we talked about online. SUNY central noticed our numbers of online courses went up this summer. This is not a shift to online but more of an expansion over the summer since we are adding more.

 

o   Janice Lovett (Bio) Article in the NY Times, about the experience that Florida is having when they have online campuses there are offered on campus, the question is: is anyone looking at the quality of the experience of doing a course online? They were surprised the comparison of people sitting in the classroom then on video, that the people in the classroom certain demographic groups did better, at the results from in class, to online. Is the question to have courses online valuable?

 

o   Iyer- It is a different type of environment. We are looking at guidelines and assessment as some point for our instructors and workshops to train them in online courses. I have talked to the instructors who offered online courses last summer, they said the courses were very positive and will teach them again. Some courses didn’t work as well. We are trying to develop guidelines and force quality instruction and what the student gets out of it. Any ideas or suggestions with what kinds of things we are going to be looking at are greatly appreciated. Again, we are still in the early stages.

 

o   Showers- I would encourage anyone with, if you know any literature or research on this topic to forward links or information to share with other members of the team informing them of important things so that we can do our work.

 

o   Osman Alwaiye (School of Education)- We offer online courses in the summer, we are also concerned with that same issue. We establish guidelines to make sure they are followed in the online courses. There is a lot of effort to set up the standards to ensure guidelines are followed.

 

 

·      Shared Governance (Dennis Showers)

o   Looking at budgetary issues, or leadership development, instruction and curriculum. We are trying to look at model practices, model government structures that can be shared through SUNY. We are trying to build a better relationship between University Faculty Senate and Faculty Council Community College.  We are working with them to build collaborative structures. Looking at CUNY to match our efforts to effectively influence governance related topics.

 

                  Janice Lovett (bio)-

o   Back on your other one, the seamless education pipeline: and you mentioned you are trying to make collaboration between yourself and community colleges.. Always an issue from transfer students, particularly in sciences. The community colleges try to get them to finish everything in their GEN ED and not needed for upper classes and major. Since no one is on that committee how do we find out what is happening?

 

o   Showers- We have links to what is happening and put it online. Principally the Seamless Education Pipeline is talking about SUNYs role in pre-college education, preparation of teachers in public schools and what they are doing.  The Universtity Faculty Senate has been involved in student mobility iniceiative that came out of the faculty senate to continue those conversations. . A lot of progress has been made over the past 2-3 years building communication between the two groups. We will do our best to provide information to the campus to let you know what is going on.

 

o   We are all at a beginning point with having one meeting. As the groups continue to work, we will continue to share.

 

o   Steve Derne (Socio)-

o   If the opinion is to look at pre-requesisties. That task force should look at the issue too.

o   Showers- I don’t know the co-chairs of pipeline group and get in touch with them to get information out to people. Savi Iyer has those contacts.

 

Senate Reports

 

President’s Report – Christopher Dahl

.

·      Budget

o   It appears that the republican candidate is leading all three. The state senate will go back into the hands of the Republican majority.

o   Cuomo’s positions on High Ed Reform- and on some of the things in the SUNY strategic plan would suggest that Cuomo would be interested in supporting SUNY and trying to establish some kind of tuition policy. It is hard to know and he has a lot of things on his plate, so we don’t know quite what he is going to do. What should really come of higher education? The system is actively in contact with him and trying to push forward with budget director to hand in proposal after Dec 1 deadline, there may be some news there. Cuomo has supported the concepts behind UB 20/20.

o   Budget for this year (not for next year) is now depending on what is left. It is out of balance by 350 million dollars or 1 billion dollars, we are about 2/3 of the way through the state budget year. So this is not a good thing. The budget director has indicated that the 2 billion dollar number that comes from the controller, Thomas D Napoli- the state budget director just said the estimated is “not outlandish” the projection for deficit is 9.5 billion dollars if you take the other issues into account.

o   Bottom line is as we look towards budget for next year there is little or no chance of restoration of state tax dollars or budget incentives dealing with tuition.

o   I have circulated a copy of a draft of goals by email. I encourage people to comment to the strategic planning group and general framework of  a plan rather than one with objectives.

o   You may have seen fences going up around Doty- construction is fully underway now.

o   We have no money for capital projects.

o   Capital Campaign is now about 29 thousand dollars short of reaching 13 million dollars and I am traveling around more, which is probably why I have no voice.

 

 

Provost’s Report – Carol Long

o   Vice Chancellor for Global Affairs Mitchell Leventhal- invited me to look at the principals at UN Global compact, as they might be inactive by Universities and colleges. He seems interested in it, so it is a good thing to have him thinking about us.

o   A project with Liberal Education, Nightly have been evolving rather rapidly have invited me to be on their advisory board and working with them to organize a small group of chief academic officers to meet at AACU annual meeting in San Francisco in Jan. how Nightly might be able to help us, as a small institution, in ways which we can cooperate together to take advantage of digital technology and foreground our particular challenge.

o   Thanks for Psych Dept. as well as others in the Bailey remodel. It will take years before fences to go up around Bailey. But another good round of commentary and floor plans. Looking like a great facility.

o   On campus- last few weeks my focus has been on personnel oriented types of things, Sabbatical committee is working on applications and is just about to render their report. Almost done with their report, this week and will be getting back to people. The review process is beginning to take form as we go forward and I spent some time talking to faculty affairs committee and the departmental guidelines for review to create an agreement as we go through the spring hoping to bring the revised form into use for next year.

 

Chairs’ Report – Dennis Showers

·      I had the privilege to represent Geneseo at the Rally to Restore Reason, in Washington. We came down the side of reason.

·      This past weekend in Washington, AAUP meeting on Governance, as part of SUNY/CUNY panel on shared governance issues that we dealt with in addressing the Empowerment Act. Opportunity to talk about how shared governance mechanisms were involved and the lessons were learned from doing it.

·      Fall election results: the nominees have been notified, results will be sent out to the campus community this afternoon.

·      Lastly, I have been asked to mention that the SEFA campaign, very close to our goal. Closes on Friday, anyone still thinking about sending a check, please do so.

 

Mark Mitchow- How much is the SEFA goal?

President Dahl- It is 50,000.

 

Vice Chair’s Report – Duane McPherson

·      No Report

 

Past Chair – David Granger

·      No Report

 

Secretary ReportBrian Morgan

·      No Report

 

Treasurer Report – Aaron Steinhauer

 

·      The balance for the Senate Fund at the moment $912.44. You should have all gotten an appeal from me this morning to make a donation to Senate fund. The fund is used for gifts for members of community retiring, sympathy cards etc. Where does the money come from? Money comes from all of us. So far over 9% of executive committee has given, I would be ecstatic if we could get some of the same from senate. To make a donation send that to Shielee Adams in Erwin 11. Make check out to Geneseo Foundation with College Senate in the Memo.

·      In the past the College Senate used to support small research grants—could be reinstated that with the money we have. But the $300 is the smallest amount given out in the college. It is typically used as an add-on to some other grant. I think it is time to think about the purpose of the grant and if we want to bring it back. To make an impact on campus in another way. Interested in your ideas.

 

University Faculty Senate Report – Gregg Hartvigsen

o   Honor to serve as Faculty Senator. Oct 21-23.

o   Two resolutions were passed,

§  Conception of Governance. Recommendation was given, Campuses may be forced employ program consolidations, ensure that campus administration formal procedures before reaching decisions about programs. (Passed almost unanimously) I voted in favor of that.

o   Resolution- Power of SUNY and SUNY and the world, University of Albany, Compromise the ability of SUNY to fulfill a global mission. Passed almost unanimously. I was unable to vote for this motion because I asked for more information to evaluate the decision to close these programs. I abstained.

o   Comprehensive Colleges- 30 various concerns of campuses. We will be talking with Binghamton later this month.

 

Student Association Report – Tom Sochia

o   Provost Long agreed to come to Dec 2nd   meeting. Asking questions to get accurate information to send out survey to students, for student affairs committee.

 

Undergraduate Curricula Committee Report – Bob Owens

First Reading

·      Revised Course (Found on CSB #3 p. 41)

o   PLSC 345: theories of International Relations

Objections to acceptance of amendment. Discussion of proposal?

Motion Carries

·      UCC moves for Program Revision CSB #3 p. 41)

o   Minor in Art History

Discussion of motion. Motion Carries

 

·      UCC moves for second reading on New Courses (CSB #2 pp. 25-26)

o   BIOL 281, BIOL 375, GSCI 107, HONR 394, PHYS 342

Discussion of the motion. Motion Caries

 

·      UCC moves for second reading on Courses Revision (CSB #2 pp 26-27)

o   BIOL 119, BIOL 264, BIOL 364, BIOL 393, HPE 350

Discussion of the motion. Motion Carries

 

·      UCC moves for second reading, Course Revision( CSB #2 pp 26-27)

o   PLSC 320, PLSC 346

Are there two people in the room that object to the consideration to the proposal as amended? The proposal as amended. Any discussion of the proposal? Motion Carries.

 

Second Reading.

·      UCC moves for second reading on Course Deletions (CSB #2 pp27-28)

o   BIOL 201, 202, 252, 303, 307, 381, 382, COMN 348

Any discussion of the motion? Motion Carries

·      UCC moves for second reading of Program Revisions (CSB #2 p 28)

o   B.A. Communication

o   Edgar Fellows Program

Discussion of the motion. Motion Carries.

o   UCC moves for second reading on Program Deletion (CSB #2 p 28)

o   Math/ 3-2 Engineering

Any discussion of the motion. Motion Carries

 

Next meeting: November 30, 4pm  Sturges 25

 

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

 

·      Committee met on October 26th,

·      Two items of business, academic standards proposal that Karen McIver brought asking us to see if we were in favor of determining satisfactory, academic progress, academic probation, and academic dismissal. She shared the proposal with us and we didn’t have time to take it up but we will at our next meeting.

·      We were also visited by several people to take up as a committee a proposal, to change from 5 to 4 course load. We thought that it was not much as a proposal as a discussion. We asked them to craft one if they would like us to take it up as a committee. We haven’t’ heard back.

·      The next meeting: Tuesday November 23rd at 4pm South 209.

Graduate Academic AffairsDoug MacKenzie

§  No report

 

Student Affairs – Jeff Over

o   Student affairs met in October we discussed issues with the School of Performing Arts, class meetings and performances during exam week. We will report later.

o   Next meeting November 30th, 4pm

 

Faculty Affairs – James McLean

o   Been communicating with SOFI reimplementation committee. They should expect the pilot of the new system through Knightweb next semester and switch over completely next fall.

o   Met with Provost, switching over to new personnel evaluation form discussion is on going as to make sure foundation of the form assumes is firm, with respect to the departmental guideline documents.

o   Next meeting December 14th, reviewing instructions for administration of SOFIs, the new system an option will be there to faculty to administer in class, all though online.
Universal Governance calendar, knowing when they will take place. So when all the meeting will take place, so the annual shuffle to assign will be streamlined.

 

Old Business

None

 

New Business

                  None

Adjournment

 

At 4:59 p.m.

 

Respectfully submitted,

Brian Morgan, Secretary

 

 

Minutes of the Faculty Affairs Committee

Dec 14, 2010

 

Present: J. McLean (Chair), C. Adams, J. Allen, T. Bowersox, S. Derné, A.M. Lauricella, J. Lewis, E. Savellos

Excused: J. Behrend (weather)

 

Call to Order

James McLean called the meeting to order at 4:00 PM.

 

1.      Chair’s Report: 

  • The minutes from the last meeting are not yet ready for approval.
  • The chair is working on organizing a meeting with representatives of the Faculty Personnel Committee to discuss the new Personnel Evaluation Form.
  • Due to the change in GREAT DAY, our April 12 meeting will be shifted to April 19 in South 233. (Note the different room. )

2.      Old Business:

1) It came to the chair’s attention that some wished to know the committee’s reasoning for not extending the SOFI period through Study Day.  (Oct 26, 2010, meeting, motion 5)

 

A number of people concurred that students often request special arrangements towards the end of the term. There was concern that some students might negatively evaluate professors who rightly refuse such special arrangements. There was also concern that some professors might allow such special arrangements because of concern about getting good SOFI scores.

 

The longstanding SOFI instructions (created by FAC many years ago) notes that “As the end of the semester approaches, students often become increasingly pressed for time and may therefore respond with less substantive reflection.’

 

The following motion was passed without dissent:

FAC recommends that  SOFIs close two weeks before the last day of classes.

 

2) There was discussion about whether SOFI results could be dis-aggregated, so that students completing SOFIs in class could be compared with students completing SOFIs later.  Confidentiality was agreed to be a serious concern, and consensus was that this prohibited dis-aggreagtion.  No motion.

 

3) In response to the FAC call for students to get access through a PIN delivered in class (Oct 26, 2010, meeting, motion 2), the ad hoc SOFI committee has proposed a mechanism where faculty open the SOFIs for a class with a command in KnightWeb.  This would achieve the goal of controlling the time when students can first complete the SOFIs, but with less opportunity for error.

 

Some pressed to allow students to only do SOFIs after receiving a PIN from the professor in class so that non-attending students would be less likely to complete the SOFIs and SOFIs would more likely reflect the attention of students who take class time to complete SOFIs.  There was discussion of whether this was feasible, and whether the intended effect would be compromised by post-class sharing of the PIN.

 

Some argued – and this carried the day – that SOFIs are a relativistic measure. There are likely to be similar percentages of nonattending students across the college, with similar impact on all instructors, meaning that this is not a big concern.

 

No motion.

 

4) Revisions of the “Suggestions for the Administration of Student Opinion Forms” were made and agreed to by unanimous consent.  The revisions will be transmitted to the ad hoc SOFI committee.

 

There was some discussion about the best way to deliver these suggestions.  Closely related, Derné would like to see online instructions indicate the purpose of the SOFIs so that students who miss the class addressing SOFIs will at least know what the three purposes of the SOFIs are.  Due to time limitations, these issues were tabled for the next meeting.

 

3.      New Business

None taken up

 

Adjournment

James McLean adjourned the meeting at 5:10 PM.

 

Respectfully submitted,

S. Derné

 

Student Affairs Committee Minutes

 

25 January 2011

 

Attending: Lauren Abdallah, Kristen Gentry, Hye-Yeon Jeong, Ashley Lewis, Marilyn Klotz, James McGarrah, Paul McLaughlin, Jeff Over - Chair, Patrick Rault; excused Cheryll Kreutter, Lauren Taraska.  Tyler Ocan is away from Geneseo in Greece.

 

The meeting was called to order at 4:03.

 

Introductions were made and welcome of Marilyn Klotz to the committee.

 

The committee has taken on the task of determining how students perceive the proposed college course shift from a base 40 course 120 credit degree program to a 30 course 128 credit degree program through student focus groups to determine student perception on the impact of the proposed course shift.  Composition of student focus groups, common information, talking points,  a completion survey, and preamble were discussed and formulated – please see below.

 

Next meeting is scheudled for 1 March 2011 at 4:00.

 

The meeting was adjourned at 4:53.

 

 

SAC 5-course to 4-course Focus Groups

Spring 2011

 

Goal

To determine and evaluate student preception and possible impact of a switch in course system.  This does not include discussion of why we have been asked to do this, or when and how the changes may be implemented; there are currently no guidelines as to how the four course program would be formulated.

 

Potential Curriculum Changes

1) General Education requirements will remain the same.  All three credit GenEd courses will change to four credits.

2) General Education requirements are reduced in number, or in credit, where GenEd courses may be two credits or four credits.

3) Credits for each major program remain the same.

4) Students will take four classes a semester for eight semesters totaling 128 credits.

 

Examples of General Education requirements and two degree programs are below.  This is the link to the Provost’s page working group on curiculum reports:

https://wiki.geneseo.edu:8443/display/six/Provost%27s+Working+Group+on+Curriculum

 

Preamble for Discussion Group

 

Introduction and Background

 

The Provost charged, first a working group, and then the Academic Departments, to formulate program changes that would alter the Geneseo educational curicula from a 120 credit for graduation-five courses = 15 credits per semester model to a 128 credit for graduation-four courses per semester = 16 credits per semester model.  Numerous colleges and universities use the four course model, SUNY does not.

 

The Student Affairs Committee has taken the task to evaluate student preception and concerns of such a curiculum change – focus groups of students from the divisions of the college seemed an efficient mechanism – you.

 

Focus groups work by allowing 15 to 20 individuals to discuss topics of concern, following a set of talking points.  The agenda, below/on white board, is relatively long, so time will be limited. The moderators do not particpate, but guide discussion, ask for points of clairity, and keep the group on scheudle.  The idea is to have a free flow of opinions – concensus need not be reached, but important issues for each talking point are gained.

 

We ___________________________will serve as moderators and note takers, let us proceed.

 

Upon completion of the group meeting will each participant please fill out the 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, concensus 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 curiculum.

 

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

 

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

 

 

 

 

Comments:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Thank you,  SAC

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

 

Discussion questions:

1) Was the current course curiculum 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?

 

2) Impact of course change on:

                  a. common core

                  b. major requirements, electives, and ability to complete multiple majors/minors

                  c. high impact learning opportunities, incorporation of service learning in curriculum, interaction with faculty

                  d. extracurricular activities and student workload

 

General Information:

                  Common core requrements at Geneseo: current 5 cource model, possible 4 course model assuming common core remains the same.

                  Common core requirements at Colgate Univeristy.

                  Degree requrements for Geological Sciences at Geneseo (model for natural sciences) under current model.

                  Degree requirements for Geological Sciences at Colgate.

                  Degree requirements for Psycology at Geneseo (model for social sciences) under current model.

                  Degree requirements for Psycology at Colgate.

                  Link to Provost working group on curiculum change (above).

 

GENERAL EDUCATION REQIREMENTS AT GENESEO

Course

5-course

4-course

F/ x 2

6 hours

8 hours

N/ x 2

8 hours

8 hours

S/ x 2

6 hours

8 hours

Foreign Language

6 hours

8 hours

INTD 105

3 hours

4 hours

HUMN

8 hours

8 hours

U/

3 hours

4 hours

M/

3 hours

4 hours

TOTAL

43 hours

52 hours

 

GENERAL EDUCATION REQIREMENTS AT COLGATE – one class is equivalent to 4 semester credit hours

Course

Classes

Legacies of the Ancient World (study of texts from the ancient Mediterranean and Near Eastern world that have had lasting philosophical, political, religious, and artistic influence) = HUMN

1

Chanlenges of Modernity (students conduct an interdisciplinary study of primary texts from the period between 1750 and the present, leading to an understanding of the impact on the modern world of urbanization, industrialization, capitalism, imperialism, and scientific discovery) = HUMN

1

Communities and Identities (Course subject examples include North American Indians, Ethiopia, Russia at the Crossroads of East and West, and The Arctic) = S/

1

Scientific Prespectives on the World (Course examples include The Science of Art, Earth Resources, Genes and Human Fate, and Sport and the Scientific Method) = N/

1

Global Engagements (courses ask students to analyze the conditions and effects of cross-cultural interaction) = M/

1

Areas of Inquery (two classes in each: Human Thought and Expression; Social Relations, Institutions, and Agents; and Natural Sciences and Mathematics) = more core

6

Foreign Language – same as Geneseo

2

TOTAL

52 hours

 

Degree comparison: 1)  Natural Sciences

 

REQUIRED GENESEO GSCI COURSES

Course

5-course

4-course

GSCI 111

4 hours

4 hours

GSCI 112

4 hours

4 hours

GSCI 210

3 hours

4 hours

GSCI 220

3 hours

4 hours

GSCI 331

3 hours

4 hours

GSCI 341

3 hours

4 hours

GSCI 351

3 hours

4 hours

GSCI 361

3 hours

4 hours

GSCI 391

1 hour

2 hours

3 300 level GSCI electives

9 hours

12 hours

TOTAL

36 hours

46 hours

 

RELATED REQUIREMENTS GSCI

Course

5-course

4-course

MATH 221

4 hours

4 hours

MATH 222 or statistics

4 or 3 hours

4 hours

BIOL 116  (N/)

2 hours

 

BIOL 117

3 hours

4 hours

BIOL 119

3 hours

4 hours

CHEM 116/117 or 120/121

4 hours

4 hours

CHEM 118/125 or 122/125

4 hours

4 hours

PHYS 123/124  (N/)

4 hours

4 hours

PHYS 125/126

4 hours

4 hours

TOTAL

31 or 32 hours

32 hours

 

TOTAL CREDIT HOURS FOR DEGREE - NatSci

102 or 103 hours/120

122 hours/128

 

REQUIRED GSCI COURSES AT COLGATE

Course

classes

GSCI 201 prereq is one 100 level geology course

1

GSCI 202

1

GSCI 215

1

GSCI 301

1

GSCI 305

1

GSCI 200/300 electives

2

GSCI 400 elective

1

GSCI 441 - research

1

GSCI 491 - thesis

1

TOTAL

44 hours

 

RELATED REQUIREMENTS GSCI AT COLGATE – there is also a track that does not include the related requirements, but these students are not supported for going to graduate school.

Course

Classes

MATH-CALCULUS

2

CHEM

2

BIOL or PHYS

2

TOTAL

24 hours

 

 

TOTAL CREDIT HOURS FOR DEGREE – NatSci Colgate

114 hours/128

 

 

 

2) Social Sciences

 

REQUIRED GENESEO PSYC COURSES

Course

5-course

4-course

PSYC 100

3 hours

4 hours

PSYC 250

3 hours

4 hours

PSYC 251

3 hours

4 hours

PSYC 352

3 hours

4 hours

PSYC 330, 332, 335, 338, or 357

3 hours

4 hours

PSYC 307, 325, or 315

3 hours

4 hours

PSYC 350 or 355

3 hours

4 hours

PSYC 215, 216, or 217

3 hours

4 hours

4 200/300 level PSYC electives

12 hours

16 hours

TOTAL

36 hours

48 hours

 

RELATED REQUIREMENTS PSYC

Course

5-course

4-course

BIOL 103/104, 117/116 or 119/116 (N/)

4 hours

4 hours

 

 

TOTAL CREDIT HOURS FOR DEGREE – Soc Sci

79 hours/120

100 hours/128

 

REQUIRED PSYC COURSES AT COLGATE

Course

classes

PSYC 150

1

PSYC 200

1

PSYC 250

1

PSYC 260

1

PSYC 270

1

PSYC 309

1

300 level PSYC

2

400 level seminar

1

Honors requires 2 semester research project of high quality

2

TOTAL

36 or 44 hours

 

TOTAL CREDIT HOURS FOR DEGREE – Soc Sci at Colgate

88 hours/128

 

 


Our current status:

 

 Focus Groups

The plan is to solicit names of 3-5 students, for the most part seniors, from Department Chairs and Deans of Schools of the College for invitation to the focus group discussions that will be separated along division lines, where it is expected to have 15 to 20 participants per focus group with a scheudled meeting time of 1:20.  The six groups will be [committee steering person(s)]:

                  a. Presidential Scholars (James McGarrah and Cheryl Kreutter)

                  b. Social Sciences (Paul McLaughlin and Hye-Yeon Jeong)

                  c. Humanities (Lauren Taraska and Kristen Gentry)

                  d. Fine Arts (Jeff Over and Ashley Lewis)

                  e. Natural Sciences (Patrick Rault and Dayshawn Simmons)

                  f. Professional Programs (Victoria Farmer/Marilyn Klotz and Lauren Abdallah)

 

The focus group attendees will be given the background information for the proposed curriculum change and links to department discussion and plans for curricular changes available on the Provost website – the information above.  Main points for discussion with time limits will be written on a board in the forum room, where a list of pros and cons for each focus question will be developed.  Consensus points and views of vocal minorities will be gathered for later discussion by the committee.

 

The submitted student names – I will get all their e-mails - for the discussion groups, five divisions and P scholars, are:

 

 



SS - Geography

Cara Kowalski
Ben Wunder
Rachel Oconnor
Ashley Tinney
Patrick Callahan
Eric Svenson

 

SS - Communication

Julie Stephens
Sara Barton
Alex Rozzi
Carly O'Keefe
Steve Maher
Maggie Gotch
Jamie King
Alexandra Priori

 

SS -Anthropology

Satoko Hirano, sh22

Emma Loe

 Brian House,

Noah Kanter,

Bridget Dunn,

Loretta Tucker

Tracie Terrana

 

SS - Psycology

Anna McDonough (acm9)

Mike Perrone (map15)

Matt Tompkins (mlt4)

Maegan Plumeri (map11)

Drew Frohn (aff4)

Dan Kawaguchi (dmk1)

 

SS - Political Science

Claire Bould
Curtis Biederbeck
Donna Hanrahan
Rosamond Dornan
Sophie Fitzsimmons-Peters
Samuel White

 

SS - Sociology

Patricia Bandy,pab7

Laura DeMarco,lmd14

Jennie Dixon,jmd31

Mike Fowler,mef8

Ryan Graham,rsg4

Claire Howe,cmh20

Evan Johnson,eaj6

Cara Kowalski,clk9

 

NS - Chemistry

Emily Kahn  erk4
Toby Maxwell  tmm19
Denise Femia  df5
Christine O'Connell cdo1
Brett Fiedler  blf2

 

NS - Physics

Robert Henchen (rjh7)
Gary Ruane (gr1)
Lee Gabler (LFG1)
Amanda Geniviva (amg1)
 Kye Shibata (krs9)

 

NS - Geology

Katherine Dominguez

Sean Sanguinito

Lizz Huss

Niel Swanson

Samantha Nemkin

Ben Hocking

 

NS - Biology

Abbi Besch

Morgan Clark

Olga Varechtchouk

Matthew Stryker

Steven Wasserman

Michelle Vanhorne

 

NS - Math

Kevin Palmowski
Michael Couche
Kaitlyn Gayvert
Jeff Zeitler
Sam Cohn
Tyler Massaro
Taylor Newell
Erica Mosher
Sam Loeb

 

HUM - Language

Heather Bristol

John Robert Dermigny

Sean B. Kartz

Erin Kehoe

Dustin Rabideau

Tracy Smith

 

HUM - History

Emily Abdoo
Paul Fallot
Sean Karst
Samantha Maurer
Sarah Roberts
Audrey Watkins

 

HUM - Philosophy

Goldberg, Jesse A.
Harris, Matthew 
Mayville, Robert A.
Tsuruga,Tommi Ann
Lagrassa, Nicholas
Strusienski, Paul R.
 

HUM - English

WILL PORTER
JUSTINE ROSEN
LAUREN MERCHAN
STASIA MONTERO
GRETCHEN BARKUFF
MATTHEW CORDELLA

 

Arts

Aileen Connorton

 Allison Bohman,

Jamie Hartle,

 Kelly Keenahan,

Brittany Phillips,

Samatha Locke,

 Kaitlyn Keller
Devon Borowski,

 Louis Lohraseb,

Amy Joscelyn,

Elizabeth Weybright
Nicole Carson,

Kaitlyn Springston
Michelle Geisler
 Celeste Mahoney

 

Prof Prog - Business

Luke Haffen   lgh2

 Collette Spagnolo      crs17

Allison Bochet        aeb10
 Joseph Linz             jel9

 

ProfProg - Education

Rob White
Matt Romanow
Leah Tingley
Ashley Greene
Richard Arsenault
Theresa Montenarello
Caitlin Laveroni
Shane Wiegand
Jennifer Rosen
Andreas Meyris
Kevin Friedman
Dan Wang
Kelly Torbitt
Sara Burdette
 
Presidential Scholars

 

 


 

 

Document from International Relations Focus Groups

 

Report on Focus Group for International Relations Majors

 

Prepared for Political Science and International Relations Department Review,

Fall 2009, by Victoria L. Farmer, PhD.

 

Description of Focus Group:

 

A focus group of 13 IR majors was held on 30 October 2009. The students included ten men and three women, and by self-reporting most have relatively high GPAs (ranging from 3.0 to 3.88). The group was scheduled for one hour, and all students stayed that long. Most of the students remained for an extra half hour to finish their agendas; many had come with written notes. All of the students were well prepared and had given a great deal of thought to their comments. I structured the session by dividing the board into three sections, labeled “Commendations,” “Concerns,” and “Recommendations.” I then had the group elect a representative to record their main points on the board, grouped under the three headings, while I sat off to the side and took notes. I served as a resource for point-of-information questions, but otherwise did not participate in or steer the discussion, with the exception of asking for clarification of recommendations (such as making sure I had correct phrasing, or ascertaining whether a recommendation represented consensus or a minority view). Two students who were unable to attend provided me with detailed and well-considered written submissions that are consistent with the focus group discussion.

 

Major Findings:

 

Student concerns and recommendations were summarized in one clear statement:

“We need more faculty.” The students clearly articulated, at the beginning of and throughout the session, the fact that nearly all of their recommendations are predicated on hiring more faculty. There was also consensus—and pride—regarding the structure of the curriculum, particularly the major requirements and language and study abroad requirements; applicability of the degree to their career interests, with courses making “real-world” connections; and general reputation of the department. The department is considered by the students to be more organized, accessible, and efficient than many Geneseo departments, and they explicitly asked me to write in this report that “much of the credit for this goes to Diane Lounsbury,” department secretary. They also repeatedly stated that they think the department is doing the best it can do given severely limited resources. The students are deeply concerned, however, about large class sizes; paucity of course offerings; insufficient support for language training; and inconsistencies across course sections and professors, both in and outside of courses. They also expressed a strong need for department-sponsored career guidance and internship opportunities.

 

Detailed Findings:

 

            Faculty Needed

 

Lack of faculty, and related to that paucity of course offerings, large course sizes, and shortage of opportunities for advising, career advice, honors theses, etc., is the major concern of the students. They feel that the faculty and department are doing the best job possible given these limitations, and were quite generous in their praise of the work of the standing faculty. They are fully aware of budgetary limitations. However, they feel that the growing number of majors has outpaced the ability of the faculty to meet departmental needs. Recommendations:

 

  • Provide for full coverage of all courses for any faculty leave
  • Discourage multiple faculty from taking sabbatical simultaneously
  • Hire new faculty, specifically:
    • An Africanist (preferably in political science and international relations, but the students indicated that this position could be elsewhere in the IR curriculum)
    • A diplomacy/military studies specialist
    • An East Asianist (possibly with a political economy specialization)
    • A Middle East specialist
    • A national security/strategic studies specialist

 

 

            Basic Requirements

 

The students expressed great pride in the basic major requirements, feeling that they provide a good grounding and overview of key areas in the field. They are particularly pleased that ECON 101 and 102 are required courses. Three specific suggestions arose:

 

  • PLSC 228, Developing World Politics, should be made a basic requirement for all majors. If this cannot be done immediately, at minimum it should be returned to the list of courses fulfilling the developing-world requirement. Moving PLSC 228 to the developing world track makes it harder for students in the other concentrations to take our course, rather than those in other departments that they often consider to be less vital to their degrees.
  • The list of courses that fulfill the world cultures and religions requirement should be reconsidered. The students feel that there are more courses offered by the university that could fill the requirement than we currently have on the list.
  • The students are concerned that our requirements do not include enough quantitative studies to make them competitive for graduate programs. This is of particular concern for the Global Political Economy track. They suggest that a statistics course be added as a basic requirement, and that students be encouraged to take upper-level economics courses. They are not particularly concerned about adding more hours to the major, and some think the major has too few required hours as it stands.

 

Related Requirements

 

The students are committed to and proud of the requirements for language training and study abroad. However, they are deeply concerned about the difficulty they face in simply fulfilling their language requirement, let alone obtaining the expertise in languages that they will need for successful careers. This problem is viewed as a major obstacle and detriment, causing direct and severe harm to the program and to its reputation. As one student wrote: “We have terrible language support in this school… Until we have a stronger language department, we have no credibility as an IR school.”

 

·       More sections of languages currently taught should be offered

·       Introductory-level language courses should have fewer students in them

·       All language courses taught should be regularly offered through the 202 level, with options for advanced study

·       More languages should be offered, particularly those necessary for careers in national security

 

Track Requirements

 

The students are aware that the IR department cannot enforce course offerings by other departments, and is limited in its own offerings by a shortage of faculty. Nonetheless, they note that three of the tracks are severely limited in course offerings, making it difficult for the students to plan their degree programs. These are the European Systems, Global Political Economy, and War and Peace tracks.

 

  • Offer more courses in the European Systems, Global Political Economy, and War and Peace tracks
  • Go through the entire Geneseo curriculum to update the list of courses for each track

 

Track Selections

 

  • The students like the four options they currently have, Developing World, European Systems, Global Political Economy, and War and Peace. They would like more options, however. Of particular concern are students interested in either Asian studies or national security studies; they fall between two tracks and end up having to take a significant number of courses as electives to meet their goals.

 

  • Create a track in African Studies
  • Create a track in Asian Studies
  • Create a track in Environmental Policy
  • Create a track in National Security Studies

 

Quality of Courses and Professors

 

The students are proud of the perceived intellectual strengths and difficulty of the major. As one student noted, “a 300-level geography course is like a 100-level IR course.” The feel that the full-time faculty are well-qualified, and “some are hard graders, but students get so much more out of it.” However, the students are concerned about the quality of courses taught by adjuncts, and about consistency across professors in the quality of courses and outside activities such as academic and career advising. They also encourage more use of technology in the classrooms.

 

  • Create faculty oversight of or mentoring for adjuncts, part-timers, and temporary hires. The students do not object to the use of adjuncts per se, understanding that this is a budgetary necessity, but feel that there is great inconsistency and discrepancy in the quality of courses offered by those other than full-time faculty. Many are particularly troubled by the quality of the PLSC 120 comparative politics courses they took, feeling that the quality of the courses did not prepare them for their advanced coursework and careers. They hope that the hiring of two comparativists, and consistently having PLSC 120 taught by them, has remedied the problem, but cannot speak to the issue since they took PLSC 120 before these hires.
  • If use of adjuncts is necessary, limit them to lower-level courses. The students feel the department has been doing this and want to continue this prioritization.
  • Encourage coordination among full-time faculty teaching different sections of the same course. Students are particularly concerned about grade distributions and perceived difficulty of the courses. They emphasized that professors should be able teach as they think best, and do not want to interfere with academic freedom. However, they would like voluntary efforts made to reduce such discrepancies. Of particular concern are PLSC 140, PLSC 246, and the IR capstone.
  • Reconsider the conceptualization of 200- vs 300-level courses. This is of particular concern with respect to the courses based on world regions.
  • Offer more faculty time to students for non-course activities. In general, students are pleased with their interactions with their professors, but concerned about how little time the faculty have for them given the student-faculty ratio. They also note some disparities in the degree to which varying professors offer time for academic advising, career advice, directed studies, honors theses, and other activities outside of the core curriculum.
  • Encourage faculty training in use of technology in the classroom. Again, they do not want to interfere with academic freedom or individual teaching styles, but do feel that increased use of technology would enhance their courses. A minority, but a significant minority with strongly held views, feels that some minimal level of technology training should be mandated. They are pleased that all syllabi will now be available through the departmental website, but encourage (and some would mandate) faculty to make use of MyCourses. They also feel that more and better use of technology would make up for the lack of maps and other resources in the classrooms.
  • Create and better publicize opportunities to serve as research or course assistants
  • Create more seminar-style 300-level courses capped at 20 students
  • Provide more opportunities for discussion, debate, and other active participation opportunities in IR courses
  • Limit upper-level courses to IR students

 

IR Capstone and Honors Theses

 

The students think the capstone experience is an important and integral part of the IR degree. However, they are concerned about discrepancies in the level of difficulty and grading curves across sections. They also worry that “global issues” sounds more like a freshman seminar than a capstone, and may not convey the proper impression to graduate admissions committees. The students are happy with the general structure of the honors thesis program, though they are concerned about limitations imposed by the faculty-student ratio.

 

  • Hire more faculty, lest continued opportunities for IR capstone courses and honors theses be curtailed by the faculty-student ratio as the number of majors increases
  • Rename PLSC 346, Global Issues. The students feel this name is often used in other colleges as a name for a freshman seminar or introductory course, and do not feel it adequately conveys the purpose and level of the course.
  • Encourage coordination by professors teaching capstone courses to minimize discrepancies in grading curves and level of difficulty
  • Offer opportunities for honors theses in the fall semester. The presentation requirement could be met through a department-sponsored session, since there is no GREAT Day in the fall semester.
  • Allow/encourage students to do IR honors theses with faculty outside of the political science department

 

Career Development

 

The students are very concerned about career opportunities, and feel that the department should provide much more support in this regard.

 

  • Offer many more career workshops, panels, and other opportunities
  • Offer more programs and explicit advice on applying to graduate schools; they feel that Grad School Night is completely inadequate for our IR majors, and would like programs sponsored by the department
  • Offer more panel sessions and networking opportunities with alumni who have careers related to their IR degrees
  • Encourage students to do internships in addition to study abroad
  • Create a departmental website/database of internship opportunities. Include categories for local, NY downstate, Washington DC, other domestic, international, and study-abroad related opportunities
  • Provide panel sessions with students newly returned from internships and study abroad

 

Alumni, Parent, and Community Relations

 

The students appear eager to have greater interaction with department alumni and to become active, engaged alumni themselves. Recommendations:

 

  • Increase programming that includes alumni for career advice and networking
  • Increase interactions with alumni to increase department-specific donations
  • Encourage more community interaction through internships and volunteer opportunities
  • Facilitate increased activism by parents, community members, and alumni, including voting based on outcomes for SUNY, lobbying for increased funding, creating of internship and other career and educational opportunities, and donations for the IR department and programs

 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

 

 


Agenda for Senate Meeting

February 22, 2011

Call to Order

Adoption of the Agenda

Adoption of the Minutes

 

SUNY Strategic Plan Implementation team representatives

        Academic Excellence (Paul Schacht)

        Information Technology (Katie Rommel-Esham)

        Innovative Instruction (Savi Iyer)

        Shared Governance (Dennis Showers)

        SUNY and  a Healthier New York (Melinda DuBois)

        SUNY and the World  (Jeremy Grace, Maria Lima)

        SUNY and an Energy-Smart New York  (Dennis Showers)

 

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

Second Reading:

New Courses

BIOL 391:  Electron Microscopy

BIOL 392:  Genome Analysis

BIOL 394:  Neurobiology Techniques

CHEM 202:  Honors Introductory Chemistry

                  Please note:  there may be a forthcoming title change.

 

Revised Courses

BIOL 304:  DNA Biotechnology

BIOL 390:  Biological Techniques

COMN 349:  Advanced Issues in Personal and Professional Communication

 

Deleted Courses

CHEM 120:  General Chemistry I

CHEM 121:  N/General Chemistry I Laboratory

CHEM 122:  General Chemistry II

Undergraduate Policies                                      Leigh O’Brien

Graduate Academic Affairs              Doug MacKenzie

                  Second Reading

                  New Courses

EDUC 463: International Field Experience: Early Childhood, Childhood, and Adolescence Education

EDUC 480: Educational Perspectives in Childhood and Youth

CURR 509: Methods and Materials in Adolescence Education: English

 

Student Affairs                                       Jeff Over

Faculty Affairs                                         James McLean

 

Old Business

New Business

Adjournment