EPAG Minutes
March 27, 2007
9:45-11:15, Campus Center 214

Kendrick Brown, Beth Cleary, Cheryl Contant, Ellen Guyer, Diane Michelfelder, Jayne Niemi, Joan Ostrove, Wang Ping, Michael Schneider, Peter Weisensel (co-chair),  Karl Wirth (co-chair)

Guests:  Jane Edwards, William Cressey (IC reviewers)

  1. Mike Monahan introduced the reviewers and departed.  Mr. Cressey started the conversation by asking about the “recommended” list of programs.   We discussed the recommended list and how it is developed – this is not obvious to those not working in the International Center.  Student learning outcomes could be one criterion for getting on the recommended list.  Also more “formal” input from departments was agreed to be desirable.  The reviewers talked about what is and should be different when evaluating the proposals of those who want to do major course work abroad, and those who want do a program unrelated to the major.  They encouraged the involvement of faculty in recommending programs.  Ms. Edwards talked about the post-program evaluation piece – saying that the evaluation is more substantial than most.  Beth spoke to a quality issue that she has encountered, especially regarding US students of color and their experiences abroad.    How do you prepare a student for a different, more difficult experience than they have encountered in their home environment?  Some of this speaks to the need for a broader pre-departure orientation.   How can we increase interest in US programs?  The Institute could increase links and availability among experiences.   The reviewers stressed that we should always be looking for what is working for our students. 
  2. We discussed possible questions for the History department review.  The structure of curriculum, and where non-majors might access courses were the topics for one question, and the timing (perhaps earlier) of the common experience/methods course.  Also we wanted to note what initiatives were undertaken since the last review – have these changes been successful?   Are the new directions that some of the courses have taken models which other departments could emulate?     Karl will draft the actual questions for us to look at before he sends them to Dan Balik.
  3. ES search:  The recent search failed and the department has proposed a long-term temporary chair position, with the allocation retained after the expiration of the temporary term.  The advantages and disadvantages discussed of a long-term temporary non-tenure-track chair were discussed.   Some committee members wondered why this alternative is superior to the usual practice after a failed search, i.e., review and possibly re-write the ad and search again? 
  4. We will meet to work on allocations at 8:30 on Thursday, in Kagin.

Adjourned 11:22 a.m.

Respectfully submitted,
Jayne Niemi, Registrar