UCAP Meeting of 11/04/2010 2010-2011 agenda status: approved Agenda: University Committee on Academic Policy
AGENDA Thursday, November 4, 2010 10:15 A.M. to 12:00 P.M. Board Room, 4th Floor, Administration Building
minutes status: approved approved at meeting of 11/18/2010 UCAP Minutes for meeting held on 11/04/2010 University Committee on Academic Policy MINUTES Thursday, November 4, 2010 10:15 A.M. to 12:00 P.M. Board Room, 4th Floor, Administration Building Attending: Paul Abramson, Gillian Bice, Crystal Branta, Lisa Cook, Laura Dillon, Doug Estry, Anita Ezzo, Fred Fico, Kathleen Hoag, Evan Martinak, Helen Mayer, Matt McKeon, Ron Perry, John Reifenberg, Christopher Scales, Mike Shields, Jim Smith, Mary Kay Smith, Emily Storrer Not Attending: Tom Morse, Mary Noel, Justin O’Dell, Helene Pazak, Chenguang Wang The agenda was approved as revised to consider the two moratorium requests (agenda items 6 and 7) as a single agenda item. The minutes of the October 21 meeting were approved as amended. Comments from the Chairperson Chairperson Bice thanked Professor Smith for his presentation of the online SIRS pilot study results to ECAC. ECAC expressed its support for continuation of these efforts and asked for a final report and recommendations by the end of spring semester, 2011. Dr. Bice reported that, per the directive of President Simon, ECAC would be providing faculty forums meant to increase faculty involvement in academic governance. ECAC will contact faculty with the dates of the upcoming events. Comments from the Associate Provost for Undergraduate Education Associate Provost Estry made no comments. Request for a New Linked Bachelor of Arts Degree in Communication and Master of Arts Degree in Communication Janet Lillie, Associate Dean, College of Communication Arts & Sciences Mary Bresnahan, Professor, Department of Communication Arts and Sciences The committee granted voice to Associate Dean Lillie and Professor Bresnahan. Dr. Bresnahan stated that the request was modeled on the linked BA/ MA program in Engineering. She noted that enrollment in the Master of Arts degree in Communication had dropped due to competition from other institutions in student recruitment because MSU does not offer funding to masters students as do many other programs. The intention is to keep at MSU highly qualified students in the MSU communication undergraduate program. In addition, the linked BA/MA program would encourage students who had not considered pursuing a Master’s to do so. Students would apply for the program as they approached senior status. At that time, advisors would consult with the students in the selection of the three courses (up to 9 credits) that would apply to the linked degree. In the subsequent question and answer period, the following points were made: In a 30-credit program, the student in the linked BA/MA would complete 21-credits at the master’s level to earn the MA degree. This would provide a financial incentive for students to stay at MSU. Although the acceptance into Master of Arts in Communication does not stipulate a GPA requirement, the typical cohort GPA is 3.588. The 3.5 GPA requirement for the linked BA/MA is within the norm for admissions at this time. A student who doesn’t meet the requirement could apply for the regular program. Dr. Estry noted that, in the past, dual degree programs did not have a GPA requirement. This became a backdoor into a MA program; this is why engineering requires a GPA. He added that when linked programs began to be discussed as an option at MSU, the Graduate School Dean supported the initiative because allowing the option improved our competitive stance with other universities. The faculty admissions committee would serve as an appeals board. There is no minimum GRE score requirement. Although considered as part of the admission portfolio, GRE scores are not the only basis for admission to the linked program. Lisa Cook recommended adding the word “competitive” to the GRE requirement in the academic program. The committee removed voice from Associate Dean Lillie and Professor Bresnahan. Motion by Kathleen Hoag passed with one member opposed and one abstention.
Request for a Moratorium on Admission to the Bachelor of Arts Degree in Media Arts and Technology and Request for a Moratorium on Admission to the Bachelor of Science Degree in Media and Communication Technology Janet Lillie, Associate Dean College of Communication Arts & Sciences Charles Steinfield, Chairperson, Department of Telecommunication, Information Studies & Media The committee granted voice to Associate Dean Lillie and Chairperson Steinfield. Associate Dean Lillie stated that the Department of Telecommunication, Information Studies & Media (TISM) is in the process of merging its two existing degrees into one. In the Departmental curriculum review, it was determined that it would benefit students to offer a common degree with both a BA and BS option. The moratorium requests are simply following a new process that requires a moratorium to be submitted before proceeding with a new degree program option. TISM is asking for a moratorium with the full expectation that students would stay on current degree track or transfer to the new degree option when it became available. Professor Steinfield reiterated that there is no intent to discontinue the undergraduate program in TISM. Professor Steinfield further explained that the publication of the requests for moratorium on the two TISM undergraduate programs has caused concern among students thinking of applying to the program or naming it as their major as evidenced by inquiries to the department about the elimination of the majors. The committee removed voice from Associate Dean Lillie and Chairperson Steinfield. Laura Dillon moved that the committee forward this request to the provost without concern. In subsequent discussion, consensus was that UCAP should not see requests that were simply part of the process for curricular reform. Chris Scales provided a friendly amendment to the motion that, although the committee had no concern with the requests, the committee has concerns with process. After a brief discussion, the amended Motion by Laura Dillon passed unanimously.
However, the committee sees these requests as functionally different from other requests for moratoria that are precursors to program disbandment. Specifically, UCAP feels that requiring a unit to place a program in moratorium as an initial step to reforming the program curriculum has the unintended consequence of signaling MSU’s disinvestment in the content area when just the opposite is true. The presenters provided examples of the impact of the notation “being considered for moratorium” having a detrimental impact on the new program as evidenced by calls/e-mails from prospective students and their parents expressing concern that the major in which they are most interested was being considered for moratorium. At a minimum, in cases where the unit is considering curriculum reform focused on enhancing an existing area of study, UCAP recommends that all changes be forwarded simultaneously. In addition, rather than external audiences seeing that a moratorium is being considered, UCAP suggests the new major be listed with a notation indicating the previous name(s). Proposed Reorganization of Basic Biomedical Departments Chairperson Bice noted that only three members had provided questions regarding the proposed reorganization. She stated that it was an important proposal with large ramifications concerning undergraduate education that should be recognized and addressed. She added that the report, due to ECAC in January, must reflect the committee’s recommendations regarding appropriate course of action. She added that the meeting must conclude with forward motion or formation of a subcommittee to make recommendations. She recalled that the original plan had been to identify questions, figure out who are the best people to invite to answer the questions, and proceed from there. She asked the committee members for recommendations for further action. Committee discussion centered on the following concerns.
Chairperson Bice stated that it appeared the committee thought it would be premature to invite guests and that in order to provide comments, additional information was required. Several committee members expressed that UCAP should not have to weigh in on a proposal that has not been adequately planned or researched. Dr. Bice asked if the committee would consider recommending that a working group be convened to identify specific problems and possible solutions and their potential impacts. Committee members suggested that a request for specific information and projected impact on undergraduate education be included in the response to ECAC. Motion by Lisa Cook passed unanimously. The University Committee on Academic Policy endorses its chairperson, Dr. Gillian Bice, to construct a response to ECAC regarding the proposal to reorganize basic biomedical departments that outlines a request for further information and documentation.* After Roundtable, the meeting was adjourned. Respectfully submitted by Sandra Walther *See attachment: UCAP Response to the Proposal for the Reorganization of the Shared Basic Biomedical Science Departments, 11/4/10*Attachment ATTACHMENT: November 4, 2010 To: John W. Powell Chairperson, Executive Committee of Academic Council From: Gillian Bice RE: UCAP Response to the Proposal for the Reorganization of the Shared Basic Biomedical Science Departments c: Doug Estry, Associate Provost for Undergraduate Education Per the request of the Executive Committee of Academic Council, the University Committee on Academic Policy (UCAP) reviewed available documents related to the Provost’s Proposal for the Reorganization of the Shared Biomedical Science Departments. Material included the original memo from the Provost to the Deans of CVM, CNS, CHM and COM [dated August 25, 2010], as well as a document titled “Basic Science Reorganization FAQs”. At its November 4, 2010, meeting the committee concluded the following:
Identification of specific “problems” this proposal is intended to remedy with concrete examples of how specific issues/processes occur in the existing model and how they would be improved in the proposed model. A strategic plan that represents the collective work of the four colleges involved. Evidence of, and results from, consultations with faculty and other stakeholders (e.g. students and advisory boards) and how it informed the strategic plan. Evidence of alternative solutions that were considered and rejected (including pros and cons of each). Flowcharts comparing and contrasting the existing structure to the proposed structure and further explanation as to how the proposed structure would resolve challenges alluded to in the material provided to UCAP. This would include such things as faculty appointments, undergraduate majors involved, IDC distribution, etc. An analysis of the projected/potential impact of the restructuring on undergraduate education, life science education in general, pre-medical education, and faculty research productivity.
2. How will the rumored merger of Pharm/Tox and Physiology work for undergraduates in light of the fact that Pharm/Tox does not currently have an undergraduate program and the Physiology major will remain in CNS? 3. Does CHM have the infrastructure and support staff necessary to service an undergraduate program in Physiology? 4. How will faculty participate in/engage with the college curricular review and revision process particularly if one college is the administrative lead but another is responsible for the UG major, i.e., will faculty be eligible to be voting members on each of the College curriculum committees in which they teach or only the college in which they have their greatest percent appointment? If the latter, will they have voice in the process in the other colleges? 5. When a departmental home is outside a college, how will changes (e.g., in curriculum and research development) occur in cooperative fashion? 6. How will the reorganization foster curricular and instructional innovation and improvement? 7. Will the new organization be beneficial or detrimental to instructional effectiveness/efficiency? How will this be assessed/monitored after implementation? 8. Will the reorganization affect undergraduate students in any way - such as having a reduced number of course sections resulting in larger class sizes or decreased opportunities in research labs? 9. How many faculty members will be required to change their lead department/college? 10. To what extent will faculty have "say" in which unit they will be located or will all faculty have the same appointment? 11. The document states that, “each department will continue to be responsible for the teaching that it is currently doing in support of each of the four colleges”. Therefore, what happens if a faculty member who is usually responsible for a specific course is no longer in the department that is overseeing that instruction? 12. Do the departments/colleges have similar systems for merit reward, promotion, etc? If not, how will that issue be resolved for faculty who must "switch" lead units? 13. Are there any facility/lab/office issues that need to be addressed? 14. How does the reorganization relate to the new Translational Science division in CHM – West Michigan? 15. Given the significance and potential ramifications of the proposal, if the data and/or documents requested are not available, UCAP offers this general recommendation with regard to process: that any potential resolution to the “problems” this proposal is designed to address involve input from, and broad-based involvement by, faculty and other stakeholders in a strategic planning process (e.g., convene a joint faculty - administrative working group charged with identifying potential solutions to a specified set of “problems”/challenges). Once completed UCAP, will be in a better position to make informed comments/recommendations. |
Agenda/Minutes > 2010-2011 >