agenda status: approved Agenda: MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY University Committee on Academic Policy AGENDA Thursday, March 27, 2008 10:15 A.M. to 12:00 P.M. Board Room, 4th Floor, Administration Building
minutes status: approved approved at meeting of 04/10/2008 UCAP Minutes for meeting held on 03/27/2008 MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY University Committee on Academic Policy Thursday, March 27, 2008 10:15 A.M. TO 12:00 P.M. Board Room, Administration Building Minutes Attendees: Dennis Banks, Sekhar Chivukula, Peter Cobbett, Marty Crimp, Doug Estry, Ruba Farah, Richard Hallgren, Jeremy Harrison, Linda Jackson, Carolyn Loeb, Helen Mayer, Brad McDonald, Jerry Punch, Henry Reinart, Michael Schechter, Parita Shah, Michael Shields, Jim Smith, Tom Volkening Absent: Richard Hallgren, Caroline Hartig, Ralph Putnam, Chris Wenstrom The Agenda was approved with the following modifications: Dr. Ernest Betts will present during Item 9, an additional public statement will be made by Dr. Matthew Anderson, President the MSU Black Faculty, Staff, and Administrators Association (BFSAA) after Dr. Petroni in Item 5. In addition, Dr. Robert Duncan, Dean of the Eli Broad College of Business will be a respondent in Item 9. Minutes from the 3/13/08 meeting were approved. Comments from the Chairperson Chairperson Chivukula provided an overview of the agenda noting that agenda Item 5 had been added to accommodate requests from faculty members to provide input into deliberations on a policy matter being considered (Item 9), but who were unable to attend that portion of the meeting. Written statements from the requestors were distributed to the committee prior to the meeting and, in order to provide balance and get through the day’s agenda, their statements will be limited to 2 or 3 minutes. Professor Chivukula pointed out that agenda Items 8 and 9 are matters in which the committee has delegated authority, meaning the committee’s decision is final and does not return to another governance body for approval. Dr. Chivukula informed the committee that Ralph Putnam would distribute a draft of Religious Observance Policy Proposal for discussion at the April 10 meeting. Comments from the Associate Provost for Undergraduate Education Associate Provost Estry stated that the charge to the Sustainability Specialization Proposal subcommittee charge had been drawn up. In it, the subcommittee is asked to consider the issues raised by UCAP and UGAAD concerning the proposal and to recommend a strategy to move the proposal forward. Public Comments: Request to Change the Admission as a Junior in Business Administration Statement Kathy Petroni, Professor, Accounting Department Matthew Anderson, Associate Professor, Accounting and Information Systems and President of the MSU Black Faculty, Staff, and Administrators Association (BFSAA) The committee unanimously granted voice to Drs. Petroni and Anderson. Dr. Petroni stated that her intention was to voice a minority opinion on the College of Business proposal to require seven classes as a prerequisite to admission as a junior to the major. She expressed her main concern would be fairness to students, particularly to those students who apply and are not accepted in the major. It was her opinion that no preference students or students switching majors would be disadvantaged by their inability meet the seven required classes by the time junior status is reached. In particular, students without AP credits would find these proposed prerequisites to the major difficult to integrate into their schedules without additional costs in time and money. Additionally, Dr. Petroni stated that she found no reason for requiring calculus prior to admission to the major as a junior. She was not aware of any classes in which calculus would be a prerequisite. In conclusion, she stated that she would be satisfied if six of the 21 credits required in the proposal would be negotiated out of the prerequisites requested by the College of Business. Matthew Anderson introduced himself as a representative from the BSFAA. He encouraged UCAP to consider the requests by the School of Business in human terms. He stated that 15-25% of students applying to the major will be affected. Given the total number of students who apply to the college of business, as many as 1000 students may not be able to meet the proposed requirements. He maintained that it would be a high price, in human terms, to pay for this change and that homogeneity would increase by reducing access to the business major to students coming from disadvantaged backgrounds, contrary to MSU’s tradition and stated core values. Dr. Anderson requested that UCAP ask the College of Business to recast its proposal to demonstrate why these additional requirements would be helpful to the success of its students. Consolidated Draft Proposal for Changes in Policy, Rules, and/or Taxonomic Practices in Curriculum. Gillian Bice, Chairperson, University Curriculum Committee Chairperson Chivukula introduced the topic, stating that due to the unusual nature of the proposal, Dr. Bice had been asked to brief the committee in advance of the public forums scheduled for feedback on the proposal. As an informational item, he asked the committee to defer debate until the matter returns to UCAP for action. Dr. Bice stated that the proposal originated in discussions in the University Curriculum Committee about issues related to academic programs and the relationship between programs on campus. The goal of the draft proposal is to increase curricular clarity, flexibility, and improved student experience, while maintaining the integrity of credentials earned at MSU. She outlined the six items relating to undergraduate education in the draft proposal to the committee. The draft proposal has been shared with curriculum committees in the colleges and with UGAAD for feedback. A public forum is planned for April 1 at 10:15 am in the Board Room of the Administration Building for additional feedback. The discussion from the committee centered on the following issues:
Will procedural guidelines be renewed to include minors? Wording for the linked BS/MA programs is unclear. Maybe revised wording would help illuminate the rigor of the academic review process required for such a program. Undergraduate Learning Assistants (ULA) Policy Update Douglas Estry, Associate Provost for Undergraduate Education Associate Provost Estry reported that the draft proposal for Undergraduate Learning Assistants had been discussed by the Provost and his key staff and, through him, returned to the committee for feedback. Comments from the Provost’s key staff discussion were positive and specifically indicated that the committee had done a good job of clarifying roles. A few suggestions were made for UCAP’s consideration and response.
Consider using a term other than instruction in the first paragraph. Clarify what is meant by recitation. Provide specific information about compensation for paid ULA positions and limitations of hours worked by undergraduates. Clarify the meaning of orientation and of training. Clarify the difference between grading and scoring. Attachment C5, consider removing the items regarding evaluation related to speaking style and interacting effectively with students in classroom and lab discussions in order to be very clear that teaching is not the responsibility of a ULA. After discussion, the committee agreed that faculty-of-record would be an acceptable change. Committee consensus was that the proposed policy was very clear that ULA’s would not be given duties that required independent professional judgment. Whether or not a student is performing a within the ULA guidelines in a recitation, laboratory, or in scoring can be determined using the definition of independent professional judgment as a criterion. Further delineation of recitation duties and scoring versus grading would be the purview of the colleges and departments on a case-by-case basis, operating within the guidelines of the policy. Regarding compensation and regulation of hours worked by ULA’s, the committee determined that these guidelines are the purview of Human Resources (HR) and are clearly stated by HR. Chairperson Chivukula asked that Associate Provost Estry convey the feedback from the committee to the Provost. He pointed out that the proposal needed to be on the April 1 ECAC agenda in order for it to be moved forward to other committees for feedback. Request to Add an Academic Standards Statement in the Bachelor of Science Degree in Clinical Laboratory Sciences John Gerlach, Acting Director, Clinical Laboratory Science Program Kathryn Hoag, Associate Professor, Clinical Laboratory Science Program Karen Hess, Clinical Coordinator, Clinical Laboratory Science Program The committee unanimously granted voice to Dr. Gerlach, Dr. Hoag, and Ms. Hess. Dr. Gerlach stated that the intention of the request was to insure Clinical Laboratory Science (CLS) students would be successful in the clinical practicum of the program. In addition, the competitive nature of placing students in clinical training facilities required that MSU students be successful to insure future student placements. The original request, brought to UCAP in Fall 2007, was deferred by the committee with the request that CLS reconsider its original proposal to require a 2.0 grade in each of a series of courses and to provide data to support their decision. After consideration, the CLS faculty felt that a 2.0 grade point average would be sufficient to provide the intended outcome of altering the course of students predicted to be unsuccessful in the clinical practicum in the senior year. CLS provided data to show the strong correlation between a 2.0 GPA in the specific courses and success in the national certifying examination. Currently CLS students, generally admitted at the end of the sophomore year, have no progression requirement for the junior year leading into clinical practicum. Students effected by the progression requirement could choose to follow an alternate path in the program or choose to repeat classes to improve their grade point average. Unsuccessful students might be delayed a year because of the timing of course offerings. With no further questions from the committee, the motion by Michael Schechter was passed unanimously: The committee endorses the request to add an academic standards statement in the Bachelor of Science Degree in Clinical Laboratory Sciences. Request to Change the Admission as Junior in Business Administration Statement Robert Duncan, Dean, Eli Broad College of Business Eileen Wilson, Assistant Dean, Eli Broad College of Business Jerry McNamara, Chair, Eli Broad College of Business Undergraduate Program Committee Ernest Betts, Assistant Dean, Multicultural Business Programs, Eli Broad College of Business The committee unanimously granted voice to Drs. Duncan, Wilson, and McNamara. Dean Duncan summarized the proposed change to the admission as a junior in Business Administration statement as a simple one that will call for completion of already required courses before applying to enter the major rather than completing four prior to application to the major and three after admission to the major. The reasons for the request are:
Dr. McNamara reiterated that this request did not add course requirements but simply changed the timing of taking the courses. If a student was in a situation in which more time was needed to complete the pre-core, they could apply after completion of the business pre-core courses. He noted that 75% of current applicants to the major have taken six of the seven pre-core courses. Advisers to pre-business majors currently advise students to do so before applying. McNamara also remarked that only 36% of applicants had taken Statistics 315 before entering the program. The committee unanimously granted voice to Dr. Betts. Dr. Betts stated that he spoke in opposition to the School of Business proposal. He maintained there were numerous factors that had not been addressed when creating the request, factors that would create additional barriers to already disadvantaged groups of the student population who desired a major in business. He questioned the necessity of the proposal given the 97% graduate rate and 3.6 gpa average in the major. Key points in Dr. Betts’ arguments were:
Dr. Betts pointed out that there were only 101 students of color in the current College of Business junior/senior cohort of 2400 students. He stated that although the request was not intentioned to eliminate or decrease the number of students with diminished backgrounds in the program, the impact on these students had not been fully examined. He asked that further consideration be given to the possible negative effects on disadvantaged student groups before taking action on the request. Voice was withdrawn from Dr. Betts and committee deliberation and discussion continued. Dr. Duncan described the selection process for applicants to the business major as holistic, taking into consideration overall academic performance, performance in pre-core classes, and the student’s personal statement submitted with their application. Dr. Wilson explained that the personal statement could contain the student’s personal story or documentation to help explain extenuating circumstances. Each personal statement was reviewed and in some cases students with lower than the baseline gpa were admitted because of these statements. Committee discussion of the proposal centered on the following issues:
Roundtable Dr. Chivukula will provide his notes from Academic Council and Faculty Council to the committee members by email. The meeting was Adjourned at 12:10 pm. Respectfully submitted by Sandra Walther |
Agenda/Minutes > 2007-2008 >