FACULTY SENATE MEETING
Minutes, February 12, 2009
Members: C. Bell, L. Dohse, B. Haas, M. Harvey, G. Heard, J. Konz, B. Larson, L. Nelms, L. Russell,
J. McClain, M. Moseley, E. Pearson, D. Pierce, B. Sabo, S. Wasileski, B. Wilson; J. Fernandes.
Excused: K. Cole, A. Lanou.
Visitors: K. Bramlett, D. Clarke, V. Frank, L. Friedenberg, S. Haas, R. James, E. Katz, K. Krumpe,
J. Leffe, R. Marts, L. McCane, P. McClellan, D. Miles, P. Mitchell, R. Pente, A. Shope,
C. Stevens-Taylor, R. Straub, A. Weldon.
I. Call to Order, Introductions and Announcements
Dr. Dohse called the meeting to order at 3:17pm and welcomed Senators and guests.
II. Approval of minutes
The minutes of January 22, 2009, were approved as distributed.
III. Executive Committee Report
Provost Cabinet meeting
Dr. Dohse reported that the administration is doing the best it can during this budget crisis. Although decisions may have to be made to solve budget problems, such as cutting back on research, these are not intended to remake long term policy. Dr. Sabo said the Faculty Senate and its appropriate committees must be vigilant and make sure that short-term fixes do not become long-term policy.
Progress report of Delivering the Curriculum Work Group
Documents from the Delivering the Curriculum work group will be coming to the Senate for consideration. Under discussion is the disconnection in measurements: expectations for teaching are measured one way while faculty are evaluated by another set of measures. General Administration uses the Delaware Study to count courses. We are expected to teach eight organized course sections on average per year, but the number of credit hours does not matter in this system. For example, a laboratory and a recitation count as separate courses. It is important for departments to be aware of these differences as they plan course offerings. The group is trying to figure out how this can be done without any major shift in university policy. More difficult decisions which the group has yet to address will have to be made later.
Summary of report from Branding Consultants
Dr. Dohse will forward the Branding consultants report on how UNCA is perceived by the outside world. The consultants found that few people in the state are familiar with UNCA – or know that we even exist. The good news is that they have no misconceptions about us either. The terms “liberal arts” and ‘undergraduate research” are meaningless to prospective students and parents, yet the things they stand for are important to those same people. These results will likely change how we advertise ourselves; they will not change the direction of the university.
IV. Institutional Development Committee and University Planning Council Reports
Dr. Betsy Wilson reported for the Institutional Development Committee and the University Planning Council.
Institutional Development Committee Report
Assessment of Administrative Offices
IDC wrote a proposal to assess all of the administrative offices using essentially the same template that departments use for the Biennial Institutional Effectiveness report (http://www.unca.edu/ir/ie/index.html). The Chancellor submitted a counter proposal that UPC will discuss on Tuesday. The alternative proposal allows each administrative office to set its own goals and assessment measures. We are moving away from one large perception survey, but IDC believes this is the most important kind of assessment.
Review of Athletic Program
The Chancellor initially proposed a comprehensive review of Intercollegiate Athletics this year. IDC sent a proposal to the Chancellor and she made a counter proposal. The Chancellor has already asked Dr. Holt, as chair of the Intercollegiate Committee, to chair this review. It will begin work soon.
University Planning Council Report
Preliminary report on Enrollment Growth Plans
UPC heard about budget, changes in the use of tuition and fees money, and discussed benchmarks for the Strategic Plan at its January 27 meeting.
UPC talked briefly about the Faculty Senate’s Sense of Senate resolution on Enrollment Growth and will discuss this in detail next week. UPC will likely prepare a formal response to the resolution as a result of that meeting.
Dr. Wilson noted that the enrollment numbers discussed at the last Senate meeting (100 students for ten years) are not that different from preliminary discussions from the original recommendations of the Enrollment Growth and University Size task Force. The number was modified from 3500 FTE to 3500 full-time headcount. We are at 2683 full-time students, so there is room to grow at about 100 students per year for ten years.
V. Faculty Welfare and Development Committee Report
Dr. Merritt Moseley gave the Faculty Welfare and Development Committee Report.
Dr. Downes has been appointed to the University Planning Council to replace Dean Gwen Ashburn.
Faculty Senate Appointments:
The Faculty Senate made the following appointments:
Enrollment Services Advisory: Jeff Wilcox to replace Keith Krumpe
ILS Information Literacy Intensive: Anita White-Carter to fill a librarian vacancy.
Sense of the Senate Resolution from FWDC
Dr. Moseley moved the following FWDC Sense of the Senate Resolution in response to the current economic situation and the worry that the changes that we are undertaking to meet the budgetary problem are going to have an impact on scholarly performance by junior faculty.
Proposed Sense of the Senate resolution
The recent budget cuts will impact junior faculty’s ability to meet their goals for scholarly and creative activity. Limits on travel and other professional development activities, and possibly increased teaching responsibilities, are likely to reduce the resources and time available for scholarly and creative activity, as well as for their expected service to the university, therefore adversely affecting their progress.
The Faculty Senate acknowledges this impact, and urges senior faculty members, Department Chairs and Program Directors, members of the Tenure and Promotion Committee (present and future), and administrators involved in reappointment, tenure and promotion decisions to remain cognizant of the pressures this economic downturn will have on junior faculty. When members of the Tenure and Promotion Committee evaluate faculty, they should assess their records in light of the current and prospective economic situation.
Dr. Konz said he appreciated the emphasis on junior faculty, but it is also important to recognize that in annual evaluations and other forms of evaluation this affects all faculty members’ scholarly and creative activity. Dr. Moseley and Dr. Russell said the resolution addressed junior faculty because they have the greatest anxieties, although this will change everyone’s life.
Dr. Wasileski and Dr. Pearson said faculty should still strive to be at their highest capacity in terms of scholarship and creativity – just know that it is going to be more difficult. Dr. Moseley agreed; the Senate wants to be reassuring without inviting people to expect less of themselves. The Sense of the Senate Resolution passed by a vote of 14 to 1 and became Senate Document 3109S.
The following documents were distributed for First Reading:
FWDC 9: Revision of UNCA Sexual Harassment Policy
(Revision of SD0396S and SD0396F; Faculty Handbook Section 4.3.12)
FWDC 10: Revision of the Appointment process for Faculty ILS Oversight Committee
and its constituent committees (revision of SD8307S; SD0105F, SD0304F, SD0703F;
Faculty Handbook Section 10.3.8)
VI. Academic Policies Committee Report
Senators were asked to review APC 45-47 - the final stages on a new major in Religious Studies.
APC 34: Change Requirements for Declaring a Major in Mass Communication
APC 35: Change course description for MCOM 499; Add new course, MCOM 498;
APC 36: Change credit hours and description for MCOM 483, Film Criticism
APC 37: Editorial changes resulting from curriculum changes in Mass Communication
APC 38: Change course descriptions for ARTH 201, 311, 312, 320 to include both art
APC 39: Separation of Greek and Roman Art Course (CLAS 314) into two courses, and
cross-listing them with ARTH 311 and 312
APC 40: Editorial changes in the Concentration in Classical Studies
APC 41: Add new course, ARTH 301, History of Architecture
APC 42: Change course title and description of ARTH 350 to include art
APC 43: Add new course, ARTH 485, Senior Research Seminar
APC 44: Change major competency requirement in Art History from comprehensive exam
to ARTH 485, Senior Research Seminar
APC 45: Establish a new major in Religious Studies; Change the minor requirements for
Religious Studies; Add new courses: RELS 200, 215, 280, 302, 303, 312, 313,
330, 354, 381, 386, 387, 388, 420 and 490
APC 46: Delete HIST 386 and HIST 387
APC 47: Cross-list CLAS 354 with RELS 354; Cross-list HIST 388 with RELS 388
The following documents were considered for Second Reading:
APC 20: Change title and course description of SOC 385
APC 20 passed without opposition and became Senate Document 3209S.
APC 21: Delete ECON 215 and add ECON 342; Revise Concentration in Monetary Economic Finance
APC 21 passed without opposition and became Senate Document 3309S.
APC 22: Change Scheduled Offering of ECON 314
APC 22 passed without opposition and became Senate Document 3409S.
APC 23: Add IP Grading Option for ECON 480
APC 23 passed without opposition and became Senate Document 3509S.
APC 24: Revise Title and Course Description for ESI 490
APC 24 passed without opposition and became Senate Document 3609S.
APC 25: Revise Requirements for Concentration in Ethics and Social Institutions
APC 25 passed without opposition and became Senate Document 3709S.
APC 26: Delete HIST 390, Seminar in Historiography; Add HIST 250, The Historian’s Craft;
Add HIST 451, Research Seminar Preparation
APC 26 passed without opposition and became Senate Document 3809S.
APC 27: Change major requirements for History; Change prerequisite for HIST 452
APC 27 passed without opposition and became Senate Document 3909S.
APC 29: Add new course, ECE 456, Mechatronics, and add it as an option for the major
APC 29 passed without opposition and became Senate Document 4009S.
APC 30: Delete ECE 206 and ECE 302
APC 30 passed without opposition and became Senate Document 4109S.
APC 31: Change course description for E 115
APC 31 passed without opposition and became Senate Document 4209S.
APC 32: Change course descriptions for ECE 200 and ECE 211
Change the pre- and corequisites for ECE 220
APC 32 passed without opposition and became Senate Document 4309S.
APC 33: Change the descriptions for MAE 310 and MAE 316;
Change the pre- and corequisites for MAE 315
APC 33 passed without opposition and became Senate Document 4409S.
Dr. Sabo referred to Dr. Dohse’s earlier comments on delivering the curriculum and the difficulty of trying to balance courses with student credit hours. The standard practice, and the one he anticipates continuing to use for APC, is student credit hours. This will have to be reviewed when the Task Force completes its work.
[Approved without opposition by APC]
Dr. Sabo moved to return APC 19 to the table. The motion was seconded by Dr. Bell.
APC 19: Delete ENVR 443 and 444; Add new course, BIOL 322, cross-listing it with ENVR 322;
Add new course, BIOL 323, cross-listing it with ENVR 323;
Editorial changes as a result of the deletions and additions
Dr. Konz was concerned that the increase in prerequisites will limit the student population who will be able to participate in the Study Abroad experience.
Clarke said this was an upper-level class in Biology and Environmental Studies
and it is seen as a capstone course for these students. It is a rigorous course in Biology with high
expectations; to accomplish that there are a lot of prerequisites. The limitation to Study Abroad is that they
can only take so many students to
[Passed APC with opposition – 4 to 1 vote]
APC 28: Addition of LS 205, Peer Mentoring Addition of LS 305, Leadership in Peer Mentoring
Dr. Sabo said APC 28 adds Peer Mentoring courses to be used for ILS 179 and 379, and gives credit to peer mentors who assist in these courses. This passed APC by a vote of 4 to 1. The question raised was whether or not this activity warranted academic credit, particularly when electives are scarce. Two syllabi prepared by Calley Stevens-Taylor, who is responsible for this course, were distributed. One is the tentative syllabus for the 305 course. It is currently being taught as a special topics course under Interdisciplinary Studies. Highlights of a lengthy discussion follow:
· Dr. Moseley had several concerns. Taken together, the two new courses (205 and 305 with permission to take 305 again) would be six hours of credit. He asked if the syllabi would change in 305 when the course was repeated. He also questioned using the liberal studies prefix if a class does not have a natural prefix. The liberal studies have three classes: 179, 379, and 479. The proposed courses are not in our integrative liberal studies program – these are interdisciplinary courses and the prefix should reflect that. Finally he asked if there is a proposal to require the course(s) of students who are going to be mentors.
o Ms. Stevens-Taylor said when designing 305, she considered ways it might link to internship courses as this gives them an opportunity to get practical experience within an educational framework. Students taking the 305 class more than once would work on different topics, presentations, research, and papers. They would have an enhanced role in class by leading their peers as peer mentors. Peer mentors in 179 and 379 will be required to take the course.
· Dr. Moseley asked why this requirement was not in the course description.
o Ms. Stevens-Taylor said it was not in the description because it is a programmatic requirement and not a part of the course.
· Dr. Moseley argued that this limits instructor choice on peer mentors and it should be acknowledged. That is what it proposes to do. He was concerned about choosing a peer mentor who does not want to take the class or can not fit it into his or her schedule.
· Dr. Russell supported this proposal as it formalizes the academic component that was not present before. She was unsure how to maintain that movement that is more academic and held to a higher standard without the scheduling conflicts Dr. Moseley addressed.
· Dr. Moseley said he has had very successful relations with peer mentors. Their success as a peer mentor in his 179 class is something that he is more qualified to judge than how they do on assignments they complete in another course.
o Ms. Stevens-Taylor said students currently receive academic credit under IST and they receive a stipend. Students could conceivably pass/not pass the course, and pass/not pass your expectations. Stipends are different.
· Dr. Moseley asked for clarification: so conceivably a student could be the best peer mentor he has ever had and yet fail Ms. Stevens-Taylor’s class.
o She replied yes, if they do not do the assignments. She believed this is an important part of the program. There are ways for upper-class students to participate in course work and for faculty to mentor students in their department without participating in this program.
· Dr. Moseley asked if the liberal studies prefix is now open for additional courses.
o Dr. Katz said he did not have any plans now for additional ILS prefixes, but if faculty who teach in an ILS find there is a useful course they could design a proposal for APC. He considers the ILS prefix to be more suitable for this course.
· Dr. Moseley asked if this proposal come from ILSOC or the faculty teaching in ILS.
o Dr. Katz said Ms. Stevens-Taylor submitted this document. She communicated with faculty on ILSOC and it has their support. They liked the peer mentoring program and the way in which the courses and that experience help the students.
· Dr. Konz asked if past peer mentors were required to take 372.
o Ms. Stevens-Taylor said yes, unless there were extenuating circumstances.
· Dr. Konz asked if extenuating circumstances extend to not wanting to have academic credit.
o Ms. Stevens-Taylor said there could be a reason like being charged a tuition surcharge. Some students had time conflicts and she worked out alternate arrangements for attendance.
· Ms. Nelms questioned whether or not the Senate was setting a precedent by blending academic (course credit) and academic support that provides a stipend. If we do this and set a precedent what are the long term implications?
· Dr. Harvey supported this at APC. He saw this as recognizing the non-academic component in this course that is skills based. Psychology’s internship class is critically important to most of their student success.
· Dr. Sabo argued this is different than an internship. A person with no courses in psychology would not be allowed to enroll in its practicum course. The logic underlying an internship is there is a discipline of study that prepares one for a practicum. Participants must know the concepts and the basic principles involved. He expressed two concerns: 1) this is a 300 level course with no prerequisites and 2) the course was required.
· Dr. Friedenberg said many of our natural sciences colleagues have students who work as lab assistants and receive credit. Is that not similar in some ways to this?
· Dr. Wasileski said the Chemistry department has lab assistants for freshmen and sophomore level labs. A student can work with the professor for the lab and assist students in the lab for credit – or they could do it for a stipend. They can not do it for both credit and a stipend. It is graded pass/fail. That particular course does not have a second academic component where they meet outside of that course. It is entirely based on the work that they are doing in the mentoring analogy in the laboratory.
o Ms. Stevens-Taylor said this course has been offered as a 300 level since fall 2004. They are reducing the amount of credit that students may receive for this experience unless they commit and go on to the second or third course. Regarding the division between the stipend and the academic credit, remember that in addition to the work the students are doing for her course, they are also following all the academic readings of their LSIC, planning extra-curricular activities for the class, and attending the 305 class in addition to their other requirements. It is the compensation of the $350 stipend that covers the extra curricular work which is different, in her opinion, than the learning they are doing as a part of her course.
o Ms. McClellan compared this to requiring students to take a course prior to going overseas on a service-learning project. It is important for them to understand the culture of the country. It is a service trip but it is tied to the curriculum component that they do in the first half.
· Dr. Moseley asked if the service-learning was also a course.
o Ms. McClellan said no -- they take the course prior to going on the trip.
· Dr. Pearson supported the proposal. She found it attractive and worth two credit hours. As a former director of sales for a luxury hotel company, she would have benefitted from this experience before becoming a mentor in a corporation.
· Dr. Heard said he has taught three LSIC classes and partly because of this requirement he has not been able to secure a peer mentor for any of them. Students were reluctant because of the number of hours they were already taking, their inability to fit the class into their schedule, or they lost interest after finding out about all the extra requirements. He said he would feel better if a grade of satisfactory/unsatisfactory was given, particularly with some students getting three sets of credit.
o Ms. Stevens-Taylor said it is graded this semester for the first time. She made the change because these students are supposed to be role models for the rest of the campus, particularly in their departments. The students she wanted were those that want the credit and they want to show students that in order to get that credit they need to do the work required.
· Dr. Moseley asked if she was concerned about the students who do not want to be in the class at all. They are doing it only because they want to be mentors.
o Ms. Stevens-Taylor said those students can find other ways to get the mentor experience besides her program.
· Dr. Pierce asked if the 179 and 379 mentoring was her program.
o She replied that the peer mentoring program is hers, but there are a number of students who get similar experience in undergraduate research projects where they work in classes with faculty.
· Dr. Bell said he is on APC and supported this proposal. He supported having grades. He found that students put in a very different level of effort when he taught pass/fail. He was concerned though that the course was required. If this had been in the document then APC would have discussed it. He agreed with Drs. Moseley and Heard: there may be a student that he would like to have as a mentor in his class who could not fit it in his or her schedule. If he believed they would be better fit for his class he would like to have that option. He asked – if Ms. Stevens-Taylor understands that the course is required, but it is not written anywhere, does that mean it really is not required?
o She explained that it is required in the program documents. It is not a part of the course description.
· Ms. Nelms asked if students could take the course without doing the mentoring.
o Ms. Stevens-Taylor said this has never been requested but she has talked to faculty about it. She does not anticipate approving that at this point.
· Dr. Konz noted that the Catalog says enrollment is limited to students selected as LSIC peer mentors. It does not say all students who are peer mentors must participate; only those who are peer mentors may participate.
· Dr. Bell asked for clarification -- what is the distinction between how we describe something in a program versus what is in the Catalog.
o Ms. McClellan said this is a course that is open to students that are peer mentors for the LSIC. She believed discussing or modifying the policy that if a student is a peer mentor then they must take the course is a separate issue that should probably be addressed with Ms. Stevens-Taylor and the LSIC Oversight Committee. That is a policy about how they are staffed and not a course description.
· Dr. Sabo called the question.
APC 28 passed with a vote of 9 to 6 and became Senate Document 4609S.
Dr. Sabo reminded Senators that first reading documents are now available on-line. APC will only distribute documents that APC thinks are important and need further detailed discussion, or for which there was dissenting vote.
VII. Administrative Reports
What is Diversity at UNC
Provost Fernandes noted that several members of the Diversity Action Council (DAC) were present to respond to questions and concerns. Last December the DAC brought a draft diversity definition to the Faculty Senate. The DAC reviewed feedback it received from the Faculty Senate and from other individuals. Several changes were made to the definition, most notably replacing “dismantling structures” with a more peaceful approach. Dr. Fernandes asked if the Senate would be willing to support this definition for the time being. The definition will probably be revised as the work proceeds. When DAC has a sense that the Senate, the Staff Advisory Council, and the Student Government are comfortable with this definition, it will look at qualitative and quantitative data to see how UNCA is doing. DAC will make regular reports to the Senate about its work. It is essential for DAC to receive input from the Senate because faculty-are the key to success of DAC efforts. DAC hopes to eventually develop action plans about how to address issues of diversity on campus. The revised definition follows:
Dr. Moseley and Ms. Nelms both questioned the use of “ideological beliefs” in the last sentence. Dr. Fernandes said this was about the campus culture being welcoming to people with diverse (all) beliefs.
Ms. Nelms referred to the statement of principles which read, in part: “We want our campus to reflect the demography of our region and state.” She said to hire on that basis and to admit students on that basis could be an invasion of privacy. If we are going to be including socio-economic status, gender, and sexual identify, gender expression, national origin, culture and beliefs – to reflect the demography of our region and state – it will be very hard to operationalize.
Fernandes said we have information from
Ms. Nelms said she understood. It is a nice clear sentence, but then it expands into areas that she did not think it was intended to enter. She asked that the Senate minutes reflect her concerns about operationalizing that sentence. We have areas of ethnic and racial and other areas that we can easily identify and can aim toward a greater diversity. That is a sweeping sentence.
Dr. Sabo said he was comfortable with this document as a statement of purpose, and he believes it is moving in the right direction. While he personally is unsure of the definition, he is comfortable with letting committees of people with greater expertise delve into these issues. We should grant some discretion to these groups to work out the specifics. Discretion, however, must be tempered by constant reporting of changes and progress. The Senate heard Dr. Fernandes say that she understands that we are moving in a new direction and there will be changes and adjustments. He is comfortable with her promise to update the Senate on that progress. He is satisfied that we are taking assertive steps for the first time and is pleased that the concerns expressed at the last Senate meeting were incorporated into this revision.
Dr. Bell said he was pleased to see the changes that were put into the revision.
Pierce expressed concern about the last two sentences: “We realize that these efforts may sometimes become tense or difficult;
Dr. Russell said she appreciated the work that the committee has done. This kind of work with diversity is challenging. They made a good effort to get feedback on various levels from the campus. She supported the stronger language in the earlier version. She agreed with Dr. Sabo. We have a history of inaction in terms of diversity. Language that challenges and pushes us as a community at this stage is appropriate. We can be attentive to potential issues that arise with this language but it might be important for us to take a stand at this point and move ahead with this statement.
Dr. Haas agreed; we must have something and this may be changed as we move forward.
After several modifications, Dr. Sabo made a motion: “The Faculty Senate endorses this draft and its guidelines, particularly its justification included in the Statement of Principles and the Context. The Senate also endorses the continued effort to refine the definition and develop practices to achieve the goals. We ask that the Diversity Action Council, through the Provost, keep the Senate regularly updated as to progress that is being made.” The motion was seconded by Dr. Bell and passed.
Delivering the Curriculum Work Group
The Delivering the Curriculum (DTC) work group is making progress under the leadership of Alan Hantz and it is working to align how we count faculty work with how General Administration (GA) counts faculty work.
One issue that has arisen is that if we list some of our courses differently on the schedule, it would help represent our faculty’s work to GA. Since our faculty workload is measured using fall data and our fall schedule is due this month, Dr. Fernandes proposed that we allow some temporary flexibility this fall. She would ask departments to work with their Deans to consider scheduling some classes differently than they may have in the past: possibly creating some lab and recitation sections when the course methodology seems appropriate. This would be a temporary arrangement until the Delivering the Curriculum work group completes its charge. When DTC has completed its work, the members may provide guidance with Senate documents that departments could use to restructure the scheduling of some courses. Meanwhile, this temporary arrangement for the fall would assist us in representing our faculty workload in a more positive light, while also providing information to the committee regarding anticipated and unanticipated consequences of restructuring some schedule components.
Larson explained how this might be done.
He teaches HUM 414 this semester.
In the past, HUM 414 was counted as one course for
Dr. Bell asked if this had to be done in the Catalog or would it be done administratively.
Dr. Dohse spoke as a DTC member. The committee envisions this as an experiment. We are under pressure to show that we are moving towards having more sections. The Math department has done this frequently, having, for example, a calculus lab section on the fourth day. This was based on the instructor’s decision, not a departmental policy. This is similar. He made two points: 1) we need to be doing something soon and 2) we do not want to make a big decision when we are unsure of its ramifications. This is a one-time experiment. New policies can be developed for APC scrutiny. If it is a disaster we will have learned something. Dr. Pierce asked how GA is being approached on this. We must be honest and up front with GA. If we believe the core of the problem is the way that we have reported courses and we can do a better job that will communicate our faculty workload then we need to clearly explain this to GA.
Dr. Fernandes said she wrote a report to GA about this last summer and listed eight steps that we will be taking to address their concerns. GA knows we are working on better measures of what we do so that they have a better understanding of faculty workload. We also received a letter from President Bowles last fall that said we had to resolve this discrepancy or there would be consequences. We must do as much as we can to align the way we count our work with the way that GA counts our work. GA said the only alternative is to increase UNCA faculty load to five and five. She is trying to make the best choices she can.
Dr. Sabo agreed with Dr. Fernandes and said this view is articulated clearly in the committee. Contradictory measures are at the core of the problem. He encouraged Senators to review the report Dr. Hantz distributed last year which began to underline all the difficulties. It is astounding. The purpose of this committee is to come up with clear formulas so we know what is expected of every individual and of every department; one we can use to make planning decisions. Everything will be above board and will be available to everyone on the campus.
Dr. Pierce asked if we should communicate this to GA beforehand.
Dr. Fernandes said we learned from other universities in the system that this is the procedure they use.
Dr. Russell said this model works for her. She teaches LANG 120 which is a four hour course. It is a writing workshop and she typically teaches it two days in a classroom and one day in a computer lab where students work with a focus either on information literacy or the writing practice. There are different ways that she teaches that class and that presents a way of seeing a logical split without changing anything.
Dr. Dohse noted that we only want to do that in courses where it makes logical sense. It is not the only thing we are required to do. Hopefully by the time the new date are released we will be doing better. There is another issue of student credit hours generated that has to be resolved.
Dr. Pierce said he understood that all statistics for 2009 will not be considered by GA for another two years. Is that correct? Next fall GA will be seeing our fall 2008 statistics.
Dr. Fernandes said we already know the next report for last fall is not good. We can not afford another report with no action. That is why she is proposing that we do this – with the understanding that the Delivering the Curriculum committee is wrestling with the bigger picture. This is only one small piece of a multipronged problem. The group will decide whether we continue to use this model or not.
Dr. Moseley said trusting the administration and the wise heads on this committee to behave honestly and in the best interest of our continued existence as a state funded university, we should encourage them to go ahead with this.
Dr. Fernandes said she wanted everyone to know what we are doing.
Dr. Konz supported this experiment as long as it is reporting what we do, and so long as we do not create the false impression to program directors and chairs that we are creating incentives for them to start playing games with their curriculum.
Dr. Dohse thanked Dr. Fernandes for presenting this to the Senate. Knowing why things are being done may be an important part of this process.
· Student Government Association
Steven Haas reported on Lovefest, organizing Student’s Rights Week and Greenfest. The Association of Student Governments of the UNC System (ASG) has passed a proposal called R-19 supporting community colleges and the reopening of doors to under/undocumented students.
Dr. Pearson asked if students were aware of the bill introduced in the NC Senate on undocumented students. Mr. Haas said students were aware of this and it was one reason ASG passed the resolution.
Konz asked about the report heading: Why don’t
transfer students have advisors? This
struck him as odd because he is always asked by the
Mr. Haas said there have been several instances where transfer students enter and they have not taken the 379 course in their first semester; then they are told at the beginning of their second semester that they have to take this course or be kicked out of school. This happened to two members in our SGA as well as others.
Dr. Sabo said this was an unusual occurrence this semester. He had four transfers for Political Science and then six additional transfers came in at the last minute, perhaps because of the economy. He was happy to be their advisor but he had no records. It is possible students did not apply in a timely manner.
Dr. Konz said it may be an issue of the transfer students not knowing who there advisor is as opposed to not having an advisor. Dr. Moseley said it is also an issue that somehow it is impossible to get transfer students to take part in orientation where they would hear about the ILS requirements. Dr. Katz said there is another structural issue. The 379 instructor is not the advisor. We have moved to place transfers in 379. If they do not come to an orientation and see it on their schedule they drop it. It is challenging to get all transfer students to come to orientation.
Dr. Friedenberg suggested that Ms. Stevens-Taylor, who is the director of the Advising Office, could see how transfer students get advisors and they can bring that information back to SGA. Ms. Stevens-Taylor said she met with Emily Jones and explained this to her. When students come to orientation they meet with an advisor in the department in which the student expresses an interest. That person is not necessarily their official advisor. In the first few weeks of the semester we send a list to each department of the transfer students who are interested in that particular major and then those Chairs assigned those students advisors. We communicate that assignment to the students as soon as we hear back from the department. Mr. Haas suggested there were other problems with transfer students being assigned advisors.
VIII. Old Business
There was no Old Business.
There was no New Business.
Dr. Dohse adjourned the meeting at 5:03pm.
Respectfully submitted by: Sandra Gravely