---

agenda status: approved

Agenda:
University Committee on Academic Policy

Meeting of Thursday, March 28, 2002
10:15 a.m., Board Room, Administration Building




1. Approval of Agenda

2. Approval of Minutes of the March 14, 2002 meeting............................(Attachment)

3. Comments from the Chairperson

4. Comments from the Assistant Provost

5. Proposal to Change the Admission as a Junior Requirement ................(Attachment - Hard Copy Only)

for the B.A. Degree in Advertising

6. Guidelines for Group Work.........................................(Celia Wills)

7. Guidelines for Documentation on Unit Changes...............................(Winston Wilkinson)

8. Importance of Instruction Subcommittee (continued)....................................(Rod Phillips)

9. Crises Response Subcommittee (preliminary)??

10. Roundtable





Attachment: March 14, 2002 Draft Minutes
Materials from the Department of Advertising (hard copy only - not on web-site)


Please phone or E-Mail Robin Pline (353-5380; pline@msu.edu) if you cannot be present.

---

---

minutes status: not approved

UCAP Minutes for meeting held on 03/28/2002

Members Present: Bridget Behe, Henry Beckmeyer, Lucinda Davenport, Steve Dilley, Jim Gallagher, Ryan Hedstrom, Rod Phillips, Shaun Phillips, Jon Sticklen, Jeanne Wald, Winston Wilkinson, Celia Wills, Maija Zile

Others Present: Barbara Steidle (Assistant Provost), Steve Edwards (Department of Advertising), Vernon Miller (Associate Dean, Communications)

Chairperson Sticklen called the meeting to order at 10:25 a.m.

1. Approval of Agenda: Agenda items #4 (Comments from Assistant Provost) and #5 (Proposal to change admissions requirements in Advertising) were switched in order and #9 (crisis response subcommittee report) was postponed until the next meeting.

2. Approval of Minutes: The minutes of the March 14, 2002 meeting were approved with no corrections.

3. Comments from the Chairperson: There were no comments from the chairperson.

4. Proposal to Change the Admission as a Junior Requirement for the B.A. Degree in Advertising: Steve Edwards and Vernon Miller presented the Department of Advertising’s request to change the admissions requirements for Juniors applying to the program. The proposed changes were the addition of a new course, ADV 275, and the addition of CSE 101 as its prerequisite. The presenters explained that ADV 275 would allow for a more in-depth understanding of the material covered in ADV 205 and, by simply taking ADV 205, students might not have a realistic view of both the program and the field of advertising. ADV 275 would allow for those students interested in the program after taking ADV 205 (an introductory course) to receive a closer look at the business, theory, and research involved in the field of advertising. CSE 101 has traditionally been required for the program and would now be added as a prerequisite for admission to the program. Further, there would be a requirement of attaining a grade of 2.0 or better in ADV 275. Acknowledging UCAP’s concern over the number of courses being required for admission into the program, the presenters proposed that most completed prerequisite courses could be applied to other areas of study such as business or psychology.

Jim Gallagher, who echoed the committee’s concern over the number of credits having to be taken by students before applying for the advertising major, began the UCAP discussion. Through discussion, it was decided this practice was found in other programs and that the course load for pre-majors was analogous to some other courses of study. Concern was still expressed for those students who either fulfill the requirements and are not admitted or decide to later change majors once admitted. It was acknowledged that these students would be facing the same predicament as those in other programs and credit could be transferred to other programs and departmental cognates.

A concern of UCAP was the recent presentations of unconvincing arguments coming before the committee. After the presentation, the committee questioned the overall rationale for these changes and the actual difference between ADV 205 and ADV 275. It was recognized that UCAP’s position in this matter needed to focus on the admissions requirements per se, and not the program itself. The question of impact on the students was the central reason for UCAP being consulted.

Based on the above discussion, a motion was passed asking for more information on the differences between ADV 205 and 275 and the rationale for including both of them as admissions requirements, and therefore the admissions changes would not be recommended by UCAP at this time.

5. Comments from the Assistant Provost: Barbara Steidle requested that UCAP discuss the proposed Teaching Assistant strike on April 15, 2002 and how it could potentially impact both faculty and students. The university position during the proposed strike is that instruction will continue. Undergraduate students not attending class are to be treated in the same manner as during a normal semester in regards to attendance and missed assignments.

The Assistant Provost’s first question was concerned with the syllabus as a contract. What flexibility should be given to assignments and exams if there were a need to make adjustments? Especially in multi-section courses, should/could the syllabus and course content be altered? She referred to the Faculty Handbook (pgs. 135, 138, and 142) to review the role of all instructors in regards to teaching responsibilities.

UCAP recognized that, under ordinary circumstances, adjustments in the syllabi and content were sometimes necessary. After discussion, UCAP’s suggestion was that some flexibility, both by faculty and students, would be needed to facilitate the continuation of instruction. Some possibilities would be the use of web sites to disseminate information, merging course sections, altering class locations and times, or finding alternatives for overall evaluation. Also, it would be important to have relevant information to the students prior to April 15, 2002 to allow for clear communication and as a comfort to students concerned with the impact of the strike on classes.

Another question raised by Steidle was that of grading and final examinations. Questions of the uniformity of grading and who controls the grades were raised. The faculty member of record is officially responsible for the course and course grades regardless of whether a TA is teaching a section during the semester.

Several questions about the potential strike were raised. Faculty support of the strike and the logistics of picketing/protesting were discussed. For those faculty sympathetic to the strike, it may not be desirable to continue instruction as usual and make the strike ineffective. It was discussed that the discretion of both the faculty member and the department will be critical in this issue. Having prior knowledge about protest activity and possible instructional complications could alleviate concerns. Altering class time and location could aid in the prevention of class disruption. However, it was re-iterated that standing policies recognize the responsibility of instructors to maintain instruction.

Steidle then asked the committee what the administration could do for faculty to aid in preparing for this event. UCAP members stated that real information about expectations, contact information for students, and previous strategies used in these situations would be beneficial. While it is unknown if there will be a strike or how long a strike it might be, this information could prove very valuable.

Steidle closed the discussion by thanking the committee for their thoughts and group members agreed that it was a fruitful discussion.

Agenda Items 7-10 were postponed due to time.

Chairperson Sticklen proposed that the end of April alternative date (April 25) be used for the last UCAP meeting for the school year.

The meeting was adjourned at 12:00 p.m.


Respectfully Submitted,

Ryan Hedstrom
Doctoral Student
Department of Kinesiology
College of Education

---