ASCRC Minutes 4/4/06

 

Members Present: J. Campana, S. Derry, J. Eglin, V. Hedquist, C. Henderson C. Johnston J. Luckowski, D. McCormick, M. Roscoe, A. Szalda-Petree, H. Thompson, J. Prongua

Members Absent/Excused: D. Potts, A.Walker-Andrews

 

Ex-Officio Present: L. Carlyon

 

Guest: Dean Shirley Howell, Katie Kane, Eric Reimer, and Traolach Ó Ríordáin

 

Chair Luckowski called the meeting to order at 2:12p.m.

 

The minutes from 3/21/06 were corrected and approved.

 

Communication:

  • The Geography Department has submitted general education review forms for GEOG 322 and 426.  After discussion, it was moved, seconded and unanimously approved that both courses should retain the natural science designation; they will be added to the next Faculty Senate consent agenda.

 

Unfinished Business:

 

  • The revisions to the Irish Studies minor proposal and the appended items were presented and reviewed.  The proposal satisfied all of the committee’s concerns. The motion to approve the Irish Studies minor that was made, seconded, and tabled at the 3/21/06 meeting was brought back for consideration.  It was unanimously approved and will be added to the next Faculty Senate consent agenda.

 

New Business:

 

  • Professor Johnston reported on his subcommittee’s review and seconded motion to approve the proposed new course FOR 355, Restoration Ecology.  The course, part of the proposed new major and minor in Restoration Ecology, was approved.

  • Professor Johnston reported that his subcommittee is not yet prepared to make a recommendation on the new major and minor in Restoration Ecology.  Some minor details need clarification.  There is also concern that budget estimates were based on new students coming into the program, rather than existing students in the College of Forestry and Conservation switching to this proposed major.  There appears to be a shift in the field of forestry in this direction and internal reallocation will likely occur as interest in traditional areas decline.  This same issue was apparent in relation to impact on facilities.  It was also noted that the proposal’s “Section IV. Process Leading to Submission of the Proposal” misleadingly states that it “has been reviewed and approved by the …Faculty Senate.”  There should be some means of completing the Board of Regents documents without appearing to ignore the faculty governance process.

    The committee also discussed its role in identifying funding concerns as part of our review of any academic proposal.  Some members expressed the view that funding is not our concern; others believe funding is closely tied to maintaining overall academic quality and standards.

 

There are several details of the proposed major/minor in Restoration Ecology (e.g., credit totals, PHYS 221 title error) that need to be addressed.  Professor Johnston expects to have a final subcommittee report for the 4/11/06 meeting.

As well, he expects to be able to report on the proposal for an option in Forest Operations and Applied Restoration at that meeting. 

 

  • As regards the proposed BA in Communicative Studies (Disorders), volunteers from ASCRC will participate as soon as possible in a meeting with members of Graduate Council and Dean Rowland, the author of the proposal.  The main issue is the cost of the proposed undergraduate and graduate degrees. 

 

  • The committee began discussion of the general education models.  The models were developed with attention to the preamble and addressed areas that are perceived to be lacking in the current program.  The models were not based on the core philosophy that all students should learn the same foundational knowledge but rather choose from foundational courses in various disciplines.  Regardless of model selected, members argued that the criteria should be written with more precision, the review process should be tightened, and there should be fewer total general education courses.  If there are fewer courses, some members argued that there should be more institutional support for teaching general education courses that might have larger enrollments.  Members suggested that general education courses should not be overly specialized, should ideally be at the 100 or 200 level, and should be taught at least once a year, if not every semester.  Students should not be able to complete most of their general education in their major department.  Members asked whether students were already selecting a small set of courses to fulfill the general education requirements.  Acting Registrar Carlyon will attempt to gather some data on the matter.  Members noted several commonalities across the several models that might serve as a starting point for identifying one model to send out to the faculty for feedback.  The writing committee will discuss the various components of the writing requirement in the models.

 

The meeting was adjourned at 4:00.