October 2, 2007
4:30-6:00, CC 215
Fahima Aziz, Kendrick Brown (chair), Pete Ferderer, Terri Fishel, Ellen Guyer, Dan Keyser, Paul Maitland-McKinley, David Martyn, Diane Michelfelder, Jayne Niemi, Manoj Vemula, Peter Weisensel, Eric Wiertelak, Karl Wirth
- The minutes from September 25th were approved as amended.
- The Campus Campaign Advisory Committee met last week. Kendrick shared some information about the public launch of the campaign and reported that things are progressing well.
- The EPAG deadline for proposing Spring 2008 courses to meet GE requirements is October 29th. Karl has agreed to continue to coordinate the collection of the requests and distribution to the subcommittees and the registrar.
- Danny Kaplan will be visiting next week to talk about the assessment of the GE requirement courses.
- Ad Hoc committee to restructure EPAG update: Professors Moore, Montgomery, Kurth-Schai, Gunderson have volunteered so far.
- We made another final inspection of the motion to revise the Faculty Appeals document. There were questions and discussion about the sources of advice/information for the appellant or the Appeals Committee, particularly regarding the CST director and the CRC.
- Applied Math and Statistics Major review: We developed a list of questions for the department: What is the documented student interest? How much overlap is there with and how is this distinguishable from the existing math major? Why not add a track or emphasis within the math major? May a student be both a Applied Math/Stats and a math or CS major or all three? How is this a liberal arts major? Jayne will verify that the proposal falls within the college-defined minimum/maximum number of credits for a major. If there are any additional questions, they should be emailed to Kendrick.
- We discussed concentrations and the academic structure. What are the issues with a concentration: there was considerable discussion at the grants committee about concentrations. Kendrick distributed a document touching on some of the issues. Would they be better labeled as an interdisciplinary minor rather than a concentration? Entry points and capstones were another point of conversation. Could there be a common rubric or prefix that anyone could use to offer a course that may not fit neatly into a department? What about the concentration as a way to map one’s requirements in a context, or threading courses? A concentration may not be “entitled” to resources, but that doesn’t mean they can’t receive resources. We think that that phrase in the structural document is speaking to having a place at the “allocations table”. Is there a difference between the types of concentrations that we currently offer? What’s the benefit of a concentration to students? What’s the benefit to faculty? These benefits should be articulated. We worry about the dynamic where grant money leads our decision-making. We’ve talked in the past about the proliferation of programs – is the concentration contributing to that proliferation?
- At next week’s meeting, Danny Kaplan will discuss General Education assessment.
Adjourned 6:01 p.m.
Jayne Niemi, Registrar