Agenda/Minutes‎ > ‎2002-2003‎ > ‎

2002 - 10/24

UCAP Meeting of 10/24/2002


agenda status: approved

University Committee on Academic Policy

Meeting of Thursday, October 24, 2002
10:15 a.m., Board Room, Administration Building

1. Approval of Agenda

2. Approval of Minutes of the October 10, 2002 meeting (Attachment)

3. Comments from the Chairperson

4. Comments from the Assistant Provost

5. Completion of Guidelines for Unit Change Documentation Winston Wilkinson
(please bring materials from previous meetings)

6. Academic Scholars Program Review: Tess Tavormina, Ron Fisher (Attachment) Database 'UCAP', View 'SupportDocs', Document 'Academic Scholars Program Review Materials', Anchor 'Untitled Section'

7. Discussion on Todaro Academic Integrity Presentation

8. Roundtable

Please phone or E-Mail Robin Pline (353-5380; if you cannot be present.

Attachments: October 10, 2002 Draft Minutes
Academic Scholars Program Materials

minutes status: not approved

UCAP Minutes for meeting held on 10/24/2002

University Committee on Academic Policy
October 24, 2002

Members Present: Henry Beckmeyer, Bridget Behe (chair), Betty Cheng, Kathryn Day, Steve Dilley, Chelsea Hasenburg, Okey Iheduru, Sharon Senk, Juli Wade, Winston Wilkinson, Maija Zile

Others Present: Assistant Provost Barbara Steidle, Tess Tavormina, Professor of English, Ron Fisher, Director of the Honors College

Meeting was called to order at 10:15 am.

1. Agenda was approved.

2. Minutes of the October 10, 2002 meeting were approved.

3. Comments from the Chairperson: None

4. Comments from the Assistant Provost: Barbara Steidle reported on the new, more stringent procedures for the documentation regarding International Students /Scholars, Visiting Scholars as of January 30, 2003 that will be required by the federal government and implemented by the Office of International Students and Scholars ( OISS). Faculty and other persons involved or planning to be involved with international students, scholars, should be aware of the additional time that will now be needed to process applications for coming here, for leaving, for travel, for renewals, etc. The new procedure is initiated so as to have a continued stream of reporting via OISS linked to the Federal agencies. Presently no new entries are allowed from Syria, Iran, Iraq, and Sudan; this might be expanded to include other countries (e.g. Pakistan). There is concern about students who may not be able to return, or the work/activities they are engaged in here, at MSU (e.g., related to national security, biological weapons, defense projects). OISS is developing a website to help inform faculty, staff, advisors, PIs).

5. Discussion on Guidelines for Unit Change Documentation: Presented by Subcommittee. Chair Winston Wilkinson initiated discussion on the old May 1992 document that had been provided to the UCAP members. Part C contains the streamlined changes for the procedures to be followed, as recommended by the subcommittee; these procedures could be used as general criteria as well as for the use by UCAP when dealing with Unit change issues. Discussion followed. Steidle indicated that the 2-20-02 document, as revised by the subcommittee, dictates the actions to be taken by University administrators rather than being confined to addressing the UCAP bases for review, which extends beyond the charge of the subcommittee. UCAP may use the old 1992 document as a guideline to select aspects/procedures that UCAP wants/needs in the case when Unit change requests come to UCAP for review. UCAP has not been asked to revise the old 1992 document. The 1992 document is an administrative document that is not subject to change without a request from the Provost. Chairperson Behe invited comments by UCAP members regarding what they might want to have as adequate documentation for review. Ideas included appropriate consultation for UCAP purposes involves adequate, timely consultation with faculty; other units affected; impact on students (students in programs, in other units, consultation with student groups, when consulted, when discussed); consideration of alternative paths. Is having a timeline important for adequate consultation/discussion to take place at all levels.
    Discussion outcome:
a) Subcommittee to make a new, separate, just-for-UCAP-use list of what is appropriate consultation for UCAP purposes;
b) UCAP members to provide input to Winston Wilkinson (via e-mail, by October 29) regarding their suggestions. One can utilize appropriate suggestions that had been incorporated in 2-20-02 draft, and /or add new suggestions;
c) Subcommittee to prepare a new list of Guidelines for UCAP-only use, regarding procedures for Unit changes, and bring this list to the UCAP meeting on November 7 for final review/approval.

6. Academic Scholars Program Review: Guests Tess Tavormina and Ron Fisher reported to UCAP on the progress of the program, and requested that the program be approved for an additional 3-year period. This program was originally reviewed and approved by UCAP, based on the exception for Academic Scholars from some Integrative Studies requirement. It was implemented 2 yrs ago. Tavormina and Fisher provided detailed review of ongoing activities. They concluded that this is overall a positive program.
a) Among their services/activities are: preparation of website information for recruiting, focus groups to measure satisfaction, living/learning study groups; student/ faculty dinners at the beginning of the year.
b) Significance of Program: Provides options to students at MSU to enhance their education (most important). The program helps students to find what level of enhancement they can and/or want to do. Scholars are more likely than regular students to join Honors College after the 1st year.
c) Success of Scholars program: students take Honors courses, GPAs almost equal to those of students in the Honors College. Statistics on assessment to date were provided in the attachments.
d) What we need/can do to enhance program: Need to raise the profile of this program, more recruiting, more volunteer faculty involvement, where appropriate.

Discussion/questions/answers by UCAP and guests (present at discussion) followed.
    UCAP members comments: In next round of evaluation, seek specific examples of positive experiences by students; work on aspects of tracking the students. One important reason for offering the program is to prevent attrition, as the students may be eligible for Honors Colleges in other MI universities/colleges. In general, the Honors program is expanding, and offering more honors sections. Members asked if the honors program (small classes using faculty) is expanding at the cost of quality education to the general student population (larger classes to be served by fewer faculty?) Can one get information regarding the majors of the students taking honor's classes? Overall impression: good worthwhile program. Motion made by Wilkinson to approve the extension of the Scholars Program for an additional three years. Motion carried. All votes YES.
7. Discussion on Academic Integrity presentation (at previous meeting) by Todaro. Behe stated that the Provost has requested that UCAP review the status of academic integrity at MSU. A subcommittee has been formed. At the request of a faculty member, Steidle asked what issues should be taken up in a seminar on this subject. Ideas included: a) Clarifying what constitutes plagiarism; b) What can faculty do to stop/minimize; options of enforcement, punishment; c) What support is available to faculty, in the light of existing MSU climate that "the student is always right." Cheng recommended that UCAP members survey their unit/faculty to find out what issues they are facing, and how they are dealing with them. Wilkinson noted the book by Wheatley and Keith-Spiegel entitled Academic Dishonesty that has been passed out to the subcommittee. This book should be provided to departments, as seminars may not be attended.

Motion to adjourn. Meeting adjourned at 12:05 pm.

Respectfully Submitted,

Maija Zile