Agenda/Minutes‎ > ‎2005-2006‎ > ‎

2005 - 09/01

UCAP Meeting of 09/01/2005


agenda status: approved

University Committee on Academic Policy

Meeting of Thursday, September 1, 2005
10:15 a.m., Board Room, Administration Building

1. Approval of Agenda

2. Approval of Minutes of the April 28, 2005 meeting ..........(Attachment)

3. Comments from the Chairperson

4. Comments from the Assistant Provost

5. Elections

6. Discussion of New Residential College/School Final Report.... (Attachment)....Steve Esquith

7. Roundtable discussion

8. Adjourn

Please phone or E-Mail Robin Pline (353-5380; if you cannot be present and send a substitute in your place.

Attachments: April 28, 2005 Draft Minutes
NRC/School Final Repor

minutes status: approved

approved at meeting of

UCAP Minutes for meeting held on 09/01/2005
Approved 9/15/05

University Committee on Academic Policy
Thursday September 1, 2005
Meeting Minutes

Members Present: Angela Allen, Dennis Banks, Ken Boyer, Renée Canady, Richard Hallgren, Yen-Hwei Lin, Helen Mayer, Sharon Pocock, Ralph Putnam (Chair), Pete Rossman, Sharon Senk, Kurt Stirewalt (Vice-chair), Bruce Vanden Bergh, Alex von Eye

Members Absent: Rebecca Henry, Emily Ketterer, Antonio Nunez, Alexander Plum, Colleen Tremonte

Others Present: June Pierce Youatt (Assistant Provost and Dean), Steve Esquith (Philosophy Department)

1. The meeting was called to order at 10:15am and the agenda was approved

2. The minutes from April 28, 2005 were approved

3. Comments from the Chairperson: Ralph Putnam described the responsibilities of the committee. The committee works as a consultative body to the provost to discuss and make recommendations of various issues. The committee has the delegated power to make decisions about undergraduate education policies. Alternate Thursdays are kept open for subcommittee meetings and if anyone is to miss a regular meeting please send a replacement person to attend. An ANGEL group has been set up for committee input with regards to reports that we are discussing.
    The Executive Committee of Academic Council (ECAC) held a special meeting on August 23, 2005 to prepare for the faculty council. Two items were discussed: The Faculty voice initiative is moving forward however this does not affect UCAP and a report from the summer taskforce for the New Residential College was discussed and referred to UCAP for further review and recommendation.

    Meeting minutes are taken by a UCAP member. The responsibility is rotated between members.
4. Comments from the Assistant Provost: June Youatt added to the Chairperson’s comments and indicated that there are no standing committees on UCAP but there will be adhoc committees created at various times throughout the year. She stressed the importance of attending meetings because the committee represents the concerns of the College’s they represent.
    Youatt projected that there will be a lot of work for the committee this year. ECAC has identified a working group to improve undergraduate education and there will be a number of policy issues that UCAP will be discussing regarding this.

5. Elections: A second member is needed to be a representative at the Academic Council meetings on Tuesdays from 3:15pm to 5:15pm. Sharon Pocock volunteered.

A member is needed to be a representative to the Military Education Advisory Committee; this person works with the Army and ROTC education. This committee makes recommendations on new faculty and serves as a curricular committee for the two military departments. There are only two meetings per year. Renée Canady volunteered.

A member is needed to be a representative to the Athletic Council. 2004-05 academic year was the pilot year for sending a UCAP representative. It seemed to work well and it has been a permanent charge that UCAP will have a representative on this committee every year. This representative will bring back issues from the Athletic Council that relate to UCAP. Meetings are once at month on Tuesdays at 7:30am. Dennis Banks volunteered.

All candidates were approved by acclamation; there were no objections.

6. Discussion of New Residential College/School (NRC) Final Report: Jon Sticklen strongly endorsed this proposal to go forward as a Residential College.
    Steve Esquith presented the final report on the New Residential College. A quick history was provided:

    Two years ago the Provost recommended that a new residential college (NRC) be established in the Humanities. A new NRC committee was created. The initial document was broad and sweeping, therefore a curriculum team was created to describe the curriculum that the NRC would establish for the students. More information was still necessary. The acting provost then requested a summer task force be created to further refine the curriculum and to suggest a more definitive structure for the NRC. Should it be autonomous or taught within a school? The summer task force responded by creating a NRC that compliments but does not compete with what other Colleges are doing by infusing visual and performing arts into the core curriculum. They identified that the NRC would be distinctive by providing visual literacy, Language requirement and Civic Engagement. The NRC will not be a “cocoon”; it will not isolate students from the rest of the University. Students will have a powerful living and learning community but will also be able to take advantage of the large University. Students will be offered elective pathways by taking two in-college electives and five electives outside the college, which allows for specializations. There has been an amendment to the original document: page six section on major indicates 47 – 52 credits, add an additional 18 credits. A revised version will be sent to UCAP.

    Key issues are recommendations revolving around should the NRC be a College or a School. Page 17 in the original document contains five positive arguments and three objections as to why it should be a College and not a School.

    Discussion followed Steve Esquith’s comments:

    Concerns about cultural wars were discussed. Culture is used in a broad sense; the first year curriculum stresses history and understanding the presence of the past will assist in understanding people and community.

    University requirements were discussed: students will still take ISP/ISB, MTH and ISS.

    Civic Engagement is being used as a genus within the College. Civic Engagement may be represented by visiting artists and emersion activities.

    Visual literacy is defined as expanding beyond a wall of portraits.

    What is the potential impact on budget and existing units? Office of planning & budgets is working on this. Board of Trustees has 9.7 million that must be reinvested and this may be a place to reinvest. However significant outcomes will be expected. However we are to remember that UCAPs consultation is not to revolve around budget but academic issues.

    This is not an honors program; NRC hopes to attract a diverse group of students. It is not a residence for honors college students.

    Who will hire these students? There will be a career development person hired; and NRC may be meeting the response for the need for our graduates to be more literate.

    Discussion concluded: UCAP members are to review the report placing special focus on policy issues, place comments on ANGEL to review at next UCAP meeting.
7. Roundtable Discussion: None

8. Meeting was adjourned at 11:58am

Respectfully submitted by:
Helen Mayer