UCUE Minutes for meeting held on 10/17/2013

MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY
University Committee on Undergraduate Education
Minutes

Thursday, October 17, 2013
10:15 A.M. to 12:00 P.M.
Board Room, 4^th Floor Administration Building

Attending:             Eric Aronoff, Henry Beckmeyer, Dan Bergan, Jan Brady, James Conwell, Laura Dillon, Doug Estry, Mitchell Goheen, Bradley Hammond, Lanay Kazmirzack, Calvin Manitowabi, Chris Melde, Richard Miksicek, Debra Nails, Renata Opoczynski, Helene Pazak, Lynmarie Posey, Fred Rodammer, Evan Schrage, Ryan Sweeder, Cynthia Taggart, Abraham Wheeler 

Absent:                  Nicole Dandridge, Rita Kiki Edozie, Coretta Patterson, Matt Pontifex, David Schweikhardt 

The agenda was approved. 

The minutes of the October 3, 2013 were approved with minor edits. 

Comments from the Chairperson

Chairperson Taggart reported that the Faculty Senate encourages faculty to review the new health plan with a high deductible and a health savings plan associated with it. This health plan is an opportunity for the University and the individual to save money on health care. 

Chairperson Taggart has received the charge from The Steering Committee regarding the ASMSU proposal on mid-semester instructional feedback. Four academic governance committees will review the proposal and respond with any issues or concerns. The subcommittee will begin its review of the proposal as soon as they receive the documentation. 

Bradley Hammond volunteered to replace Richard Miksicek as one of the UCUE representatives on the MOOCS joint subcommittee. The upcoming MOOCS subcommittee meetings are October 28 and November 18, from 2 pm to 3 pm on both dates.

Comments from the Associate Provost for Undergraduate Education

Associate Provost Estry stated that the University Committee on Student Affairs has opened discussion on changes to the Academic Freedom for Students at MSU Report (AFR). Associate Provost Klomparens, University Ombudsperson Caldwell, and Associate Provost Estry recently met to finalize recommendations they planned to make to the report.

Request for a New Linked Bachelor of Science Degree in Materials Science and Engineering and Master of Science degree in Materials Science and Engineering
Tom Wolff, Associate Dean, College of Engineering
Andre Lee, Associate Professor, Department of Materials Science 

The committee unanimously granted voice to Associate Dean Wolff and Professor Lee. 

Associate Dean Wolff stated that three years ago the College of Engineering requested the ability to link BS/MS programs as a way to attract high achieving Engineering undergraduate students to remain at MSU to pursue their Master’s degree. To participate in the linked program, students must have a minimum 3.5 GPA and enroll in an approved graduate program. The linked degree allows the students to count up to nine qualifying credits earned in the undergraduate degree toward the master’s program. 

Chairperson Taggart reminded the committee that its role is to look at undergraduate policy related to the request. 

At the request of a committee member, Associate Dean Wolff explained that qualifying credits took into consideration the disciplinary content of the 400-level courses allowed to be counted toward the master’s program. He gave the example that a 400-level design course would likely not be counted toward the master’s program because of the relatively unfocused nature of the course. 

When asked why a 3.0 grade in an undergraduate course would be accepted. Associate Dean Wolff responded that a 3.0 is the minimum grade required for passing a course in graduate school; therefore it would be accepted in a qualifying 400-level Engineering course. He noted that Engineering does not have lower standards for a 3.0 in an undergraduate course than it does for a 3.0 in a master’s level course and that undergraduate and graduate students are held to the same grading standards in a single course. 

There was a concern expressed by the committee that students in linked programs would be financially disadvantaged by participating in the linked BS/MS program due to paying graduate tuition rates while still completing a bachelor’s degree. It was pointed out that students in the linked programs completed the undergraduate degree first. Then after beginning the master’s degree up to nine credits could be waived. Associate Provost Estry pointed out that the dual enrollment, which is different than the linked program, might be impacted financially. He will check on the specifics of the dual enrollment program and report back to the committee regarding the impact of dual enrollment on student tuition rates. 

The committee asked what would happen in the case of Honors students taking a graduate course as part of their undergraduate programs. Associate Dean Wolff replied that the students would have to have already declared their intention to pursue linked program, and it would be incumbent on the students to select a course that fit their master’s course plan. 

The committee inquired whether shortening the length of time a student spent in the master’s program portion of the linked program would allow the student sufficient time to complete their Master’s Thesis research. Dr. Wolff said that this has not been a problem as most students are involved in a faculty research lab as seniors. 

Voice was withdrawn from Associate Dean Wolff and Professor Lee. 

Motion by Debra Nails passed unanimously.

The University Committee on Undergraduate Studies, in its consultative capacity to the Provost, has no concerns about the request for a new linked Bachelor of Science degree in Materials Science and Engineering and Master of Science degree in Materials Science and Engineering.

Associate Provost Review Process
Subcommittee for Associate Provost Review Process 

Chairperson and subcommittee convener Taggart reported that she and the subcommittee had discussed the committee’s concern regarding having faculty voice with Terry Curry, Associate Provost for Academic Human Resources. Although he understood the desire for faculty voice, he didn’t think that a survey of all faculty was the best way to proceed. There is the sense that the faculty receives too many requests to complete surveys and, in this case, the faculty would not be able to answer enough of the questions to make the survey meaningful. As an alternative, he suggested that UCUE survey a subset of the faculty consisting of all faculty members currently serving on the Undergraduate Committees of the colleges.  After some discussion, members of UCUE agreed on the following process for the review of the Association Provost for Undergraduate Education and Dean of Undergraduate Studies: 

1. UCUE will survey the subset of the faculty consisting of those who had served on University undergraduate committees in the past five years (UCUE, UGAAD, UCLL, Advisors), and
2.  UCUE will survey the  faculty and the staff of those units reporting to the APUE and
3.  UCUE will send an invitation from Chairperson Taggart (by way of the Deans, Directors, and Chairs list) inviting any interested faculty other than those identified in items 1 and 2 to provide qualitative input into the process.  This input would be sent directly to Chairperson Taggart who will analyze it and subsequently share it with UCUE in its original and analyzed form.
4.  UCUE will send a letter to students in ASMSU inviting any interested ASMSU member to provide qualitative input into the process.  This input would be sent directly to Chairperson Taggart who will analyze it and subsequently share it with UCUE in its original and analyzed form.
5. UCUE will give Associate Provost Curry a list of persons from whom letters should be solicited.  

 Chairperson Taggart noted that in addition to the faculty, all undergraduate deans will receive the survey and will be asked to write letters regarding the APUE performance. She felt comfortable that there would be adequate opportunity for faculty, advisors, and others to express their opinion.

Chairperson Taggart also brought up the committee’s perception that the charge to the committee had changed from that conveyed in the meeting on April 25, 2013 where Acting Provost Youatt and Associate Provost Curry described the charge to UCUE.  Associate Provost Curry confirmed that the review process is a responsibility shared by the committee and administration and that the responsibilities of the parties had not changed. The committee will review and summarize the data from the surveys and qualitative input to present to Acting Provost Youatt and Associate Provost Curry. Then after meeting with Assoc. Provost Estry, Acting Provost Youatt and Associate Provost Curry will meet again with the committee to discuss the outcome of the review.

The committee asked Chairperson Taggart to relay to Associate Provost Curry the need to develop a position description for the role of APUE.

Roundtable
There were no Roundtable comments.

The meeting was adjourned.

Respectfully submitted by
Sandra Walther