N O T D I S T R I B U T E D O R A P P R O V E D



Minutes of the SpecialMeeting of the Academic SenateMay 25, 20111. The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Steve Cortright at 2:00 p.m. on May 25, 2011. Roll was called and the following Senators were present: Chairperson Steve Cortright, Vice Chairperson Tomas Gomez-Arias, Past Chairperson Tom Poundstone, Keith Ogawa, Michael Barram, Laura Heid, Joan Peterson, David Bird, William Lee, and Parliamentarian Joseph Zepeda. Also present were: Rebecca Carroll, Provost Beth Dobkin, Sue Fallis, Cynthia Ganote, Associate Dean Larisa Genin, Peter Freund, Dana Herrera, Patrick Hogan, Chris Jones, Shyam Kamath, Christa Kell, Eric Kolhede, Guido Krickx, Yung-Jae Lee, Dean Zhan Li, Barbara McGraw, Asbjorn Moseidjord, Jim Sauerberg, Vice Provost Frances Sweeney, Ted Tsukahara, Linda Wobbe, and Dean Steve Woolpert.2. The minutes of the May 12, 2011 meeting were approved as submitted by voice vote.REPORTS3. Chairperson’s Report - Chair Cortright reported that the Admissions and Academic Regulations Committee (AARC) had submitted a proposal for the creation of an Advising Committee, which appeared on the agenda of the May 12, 2011 meeting. Owing to time constraints, the issue was not addressed. The proposal for creation of an Advising Committee is remanded to the fall, to appear under “Old Business.”4. Provost Updates – Provost Dobkin announced the date of the AY 2011 – 12 All Faculty Day: August 22, 2011. The Provost also announced that, as a streamlining measure, beginning with AY 2011-12 ranked faculty in continuing appointments will be receive an appointment letter, rather than a contract for signature and return. Among other advantages, the new system obviates the need for drawing up amended contracts each time, e.g., a course assignment is changed.Professor Steve Bachofer, who is beginning the third year of a three-year term as the Director of Faculty Development, has been asked to consider extending the term for one additional year.NEW BUSINESS5. Undergraduate Educational Policies Committee Recommendation: Proposal for Revision of the Curriculum in Business Administration - Chair Cortright introduced the proposal. The UEPC reviewed the proposal at its May 2 and May 9, 2011 meetings. The proposal is sent to the Senate for consideration after being approved on a UEPC vote of 6-5-0. The UEPC minutes from the May 2 and May 9, 2011 were available to the Senators. As to procedure, Chair Cortright stated that a vote to accept the UEPC report is a vote to approve the reconstruction of the Business Administration major as provided in the report.Asbjorn Moseidjord, Chair of the UEPC, described the chronology of events. The UEPC reviews curriculum proposals; it makes a twofold assessment: 1) whether the change is an improvement and of intrinsically high quality; 2) what impact(s) the change portends for the College overall.The SEBA proposal came to the attention of the UEPC in early April with a presentation by the school Task Force charged to redesign the major curricula in Business Administration. On May 2, 2011, the UEPC met to discuss the proposal. Most members did not have concerns about the quality of the proposal. Concerns were raised about impact issues, especially pertaining to the increase in the number of requirements students will undertake within the Department of Business Administration. The May 9 meeting also focused on impact issues. Would the newly structured major, with its additional requirements, unduly restrain students’ pursuit of rounding studies in the context of the 4-1-4 calendar? Would the proposed curriculum have the effect of unduly isolating business students? Professor Moseidjord noted that UEPC did not explicitly address two general issues: how many requirements are appropriate for an undergraduate degree at SMC? What weight should the fact that the proposal is designed to advance AACSB accreditation bear in deliberations? Much more time than was at the disposal of UEPC would have been required to address the accreditation question in depth, whatever one’s views on whether institutional priorities should prevail over accreditation standards, if there is a conflict. Chair Cortright opened the floor for members of the Business Administration Task Force. Associate Dean Genin introduced the Task Force members: Barbara McGraw, Chair, Rebecca Carroll, Yung Jae Lee, and herself. She began by thanking the Senate for scheduling the special meeting. The burden of her remarks was to remind the assembly that well-conducted business education has been a mark of Saint Mary’s College from its beginnings: the earliest curricula included commercial and classical courses. Neither, she added, should the decision to pursue AACSB accreditation constitute an issue: that decision has been made and the College is committed to it. While, she continued, an instrumental goal of the Task Force’s proposal is certainly to produce a Business Administration program equal to AACSB standards, the overriding aim is to provide students with a quality business education at once responsive to the College’s core LaSallian traditions and in line with the Academic Blueprint and the Strategic Plan. Senator Bird asked when and how the College's commitment to accreditation occurred. Associate Dean Genin answered that SEBA submitted the initial plan for accreditation in December of 2006. Annual reports and updates have been submitted regularly since then. The first annual report was submitted in January 2008, the second in January of 2009, and a request to the AACSB to temporarily postpone the third and final annual report was submitted in January 2010. The response from AACSB was that SMC still has some areas to be enhanced, with a recommendation that SMC take the full three years allowed to prepare for site evaluation. The College is scheduled for a final report and decision by AACSB in January 2013. If unready to comply, SMC would have to return to the beginning of the application process. The President, Br. Ronald, has reported that achieving AACSB accreditation is a priority for the College and the Board of Trustees. A MOTION was made by Senator Lind and SECONDED by Vice Chair Gomez-Arias to accept the UEPC report. Senator Peterson asked how January Term fits into the proposal: would Business Administration students be required to take Business courses in January, or would they be free to elect any January Term class? Responding for the Task Force, Barbara McGraw noted that the revised curriculum would leave Business students freer than at present to take courses outside the Business Administration Department, although the proposal leaves open the possibility that Business Administration students would pursue undergraduate core learning outcomes through January Term study. Referring to Addendum M (Sample Student Program Plans) of the proposal, Senator Barram expressed concerns at the assumption that three of the courses to be taken in the January Term would be devoted to achieving specific learning outcomes in the new undergraduate core. The effect would seem to be to reduce, rather than enhance, students’ elective options, a very different way of conceiving the role of the January Term.Barbara McGraw clarified that the proposal does not require that students pursue specific core learning outcomes through the January Term. The Program Plan cited by Senator Barram stands to illustrate the feasibility of the proposal under the most conservative or constraining assumptions possible, viz.: were there no other opportunity for “double dipping,” students might still address core learning outcomes in the January Term. Senator Barram expressed surprise that more opportunities for “double dipping” for some core outcomes are not, as it appears, built into the major curriculum itself. Not, he continued, that he would advocate that all outcomes be met within the major department; rather, students should confront opportunities within a major curriculum that directs their attention the beyond a single department. Barbara McGraw noted that the existing Business Administration curriculum addresses the common good, community engagement, and global perspective outcomes. If the newly created Core Curriculum Committee (CCC) will allow continuing Department offerings to satisfy students’ core requirements in those connections, the assumptions that structure Addendum M will prove moot. She continued: most of the subject matter requirements for AACSB, as well as standards common to the Business Administration field, do not appear even in allied fields. Some subject requirements might be taught through other departments, but that would not reduce the number of courses in the major (17), which represent, in the Task Force’s judgment, the minimum necessary to address AACSB standards creditably. The Task Force has consulted with the Communication and Mathematics Departments, but their existing curricula would have to be altered in view both AACSB content and assessment requirements.Past Chair Poundstone noted that the proposal reduces the number of extra-departmental courses prescribed for the Business Administration major; students’ exposure to other disciplines is, accordingly, limited. The proposal, he noted, responds to extra-institutional drivers; should it not, equally at least, respond to distinctive, SMC qualities, reflecting SMC’s differences from other institutions, especially since AACSB is expressly open to proposals that reflect institutional character. Barbara McGraw responded that the values espoused in the Academic Strategic Plan are designedly embedded in the proposed Business program.Upon being asked whether the SEBA Task Force has consulted with the January Term Committee, the Director, Sue Fallis, reported that she had been consulted and endorses the proposal; it offers a clear improvement in that Business Administration/Finance Concentration students have been required for years take a concentration-designated course during the January Term. The revision will open the door for those students. She reminded the assembly that, more generally, neither the SEBA Task Force, nor the January Term Committee, nor any other campus body can forecast confidently how the new core will play out in relation to the January Term. Vice Chair Gomez-Arias observed that while elements of the new core have influenced the design of the revised Business Administration major, at issue is the proposal for a major, not a proposal for the core. The Task Force was solely concerned with a credible Business Administration major that should be compatible with the already established shape of the new core curriculum. Senator Barram inquired whether the AACSB liaison to SEBA had provided specific curricular advice. Associate Dean Genin explained that the liaison’s principal task is to advise on procedure; AACSB liaisons do not respond to substantive curricular or programmatic questions. Nevertheless, through consultation with the mentor (from Gonzaga University), and through conversation with informed individuals in the field, it appears that applicant schools should be compared to comparable institutions, in SMC’s case Catholic, Lasallian, and Liberal Arts institutions. All six Lasallian schools in the U.S. offer Business programs; in comparison, SMC’s curricula emphasize liberal arts more than many other institutions. AACSB promotes, above all, quality education: the focus is to make sure SMC is providing a quality education, respondent to the content areas which must be delivered by a credible Business curriculum. The proposed curriculum has been approached creatively in light of SMC’s distinctive characters. The AACSB accreditation team will be looking at what SMC is all about. At the same time, the Business Administration core curriculum must equally inform all concentrations. In this light, the 17-course proposal is necessary for SMC: at 17 courses, the curriculum does not address the relevant content areas seriatim; some are already embedded in courses with multiple content orientations.Past Chair Poundstone agreed that SMC is fundamentally different from other institutions. The College should promote the unique January Term and Collegiate Seminar. The proposal seems to be driven by what others are doing, not what SMC is. There is room for a more expansive major with a smaller core.In response, Barbara McGraw noted that among the distinctive characteristics of SMC is this: all SMC breadth requirements are assigned expressly to the core curriculum; such is not the case at most other institutions, whose major curricula thus enjoy more flexible interfacing with their core curricula. Vice Chair Gomez-Arias observed that the SEBA proposal marks the first time a new major has been discussed in light of the new core curriculum. We are learning to look at proposals in the new perspective, how majors interact with the new core, what the consequences are, etc. The proposal at hand is the first written in light of the new core curriculum.Vice Provost Sweeney was asked to explain a comment she made at a UEPC meeting, in which she suggested that the College should have a broad discussion about what the size of a major should be. The Vice Provost observed that the College does not have a policy that states any minimum or maximum number of courses/credits assigned to major curricula. She suggested that perhaps the UEPC would want to take up the issue, since currently consistency does not hold between departments or programs. The question whether the faculty may wish to place course limits on majors and minors could fuel a useful discussion. The question was raised from the floor: when is the proper time for this type of discussion? Often, when comprehensive issues are raised, the question is deferred on the plea that it should not detain us from deliberating the proposal at hand.Provost Dobkin commented that SMC has gone through the curriculum review process, without placing a limit or expectation on the number of units, leaving it to be determined by the requirements of the discipline. To insist on the question now would change the rules post factum. Perhaps such a conversation should await experience with the new core.Professor Sauerberg observed that the Senate is, largely by design, a reactive rather than a proactive body. When “meta-issues” are raised, the Senate is intrinsically susceptible to the argument that faculty business should not be detained by philosophical discussion. AACSB accreditation has never come before the faculty for discussion on the merits. Nevertheless, its pursuit entails signal repercussions for the school as a whole, e.g.: the closure of SEED, the de facto repudiation of the faculty salary policy owing to differential salaries. Perhaps, in the not-so-distant future, it will inspire “differential” rank and tenure criteria as well: what will happen when a faculty member comes up for tenure, having met the SMC criteria, but not the criteria for AACSB academic qualification? The proposal, Professor Sauerberg allowed, is as a single artifact quite wonderful, but he would like to see such efforts accompanied by the architectonic discussion of accreditation.Professor Kolhede denied that there is significant separation between AACSB standards and the traditions of the college. While AACSB has certain parameters, accreditation is subject to the mission and the nature of the institution. SEBA should not be questioned regarding whether it fits in with the mission and philosophy of the College. Two consecutive programs reviews have demonstrated how the school abides by and respects and implements the mission of the college. SEBA should not have to continue to prove itself.Provost Dobkin noted that the Board of Trustees has affirmed pursuit of AACSB accreditation as being consistent with the mission of the College. Receiving accreditation is an expectation of the Board, who see it as consistent with the identity and mission of SMC. Vice Chair Gomez-Arias argued that while the proposed changes in the Business Administration major comply with AACSB requirements, they would be required even were SMC not pursuing accreditation; for, they respond to the Lasallian imperative for quality education. The major needs the change, whether the school is accredited or not.Professor Freund was puzzled with the comments about the integration of the proposal and the mission of the college. There are, he noted, at least three pages dedicated to the subject within the proposal. The proposal seems to have all of the pieces, and it sounds—he allowed—“terrific” for the business major.Christa Kell acknowledged that excellent questions have been raised around core and integration. Those are the sort of questions that will be facing all of the various majors as they advance course proposals to the new Core Curriculum Committee. The UEPC, in the meantime, reviewed the proposal as a major curriculum proposal, and, as Professor Mosseidjord reported, not in the context of accreditation. Senator Barram averred that certain questions were liable to be raised owing to the close vote of the UEPC (6-5-0). Obviously, probing questions—questions having less to do with the intrinsic quality of the proposal, and more to do with the number of courses assigned to the major—had surfaced in the UEPC, and commanded attention of the Senate. He suggested to the incoming Senate chair, that some of the major issues raised in the course of the discussion be pursued next year.Professor Moseidjord stated that his personal concern over the proposal has to do with its impact on student choice. In his view, the integrity of the major-elective system demands that students be offered maximal opportunities to explore subject matters and methods, without the penalty of unduly foreclosing their major options. The proposal seems to militate in another direction. Cynthia Ganote expressed support for the proposal. It is built upon the core curriculum requirements and seeks a balance between building upon a liberal arts core and a rigorous curriculum, by disciplinary standards. It is a balanced proposal, likely—as she expects as a member of the CCC—to be enhanced by the many ways students will be enabled to “double dip.”Professor McGraw observed that SMC students have a choice of many majors. The proposal adds further choice within the Business major by adding two concentrations. If students want more flexibility, they can choose to take general Business and not take a concentration. That will allow them to minor in many other disciplines.Provost Dobkin stated the proposal has four competencies that are expected for the discipline. The problem may be a larger issue of how much instructional time is required of our students in general. Faculty may wish to look at the ratio between general and disciplinary instructional time.Past Chair Poundstone expressed his appreciation of the in-depth conversation among the faculty over the proposal, which promises dramatic improvement of the business major. He added that faculty should begin to discuss the larger questions over criteria governing SMC major curricula in general. Senator Heid commented that, as a member of the PRC during the Business Administration review, she had been very impressed with how the three traditions of the College are incorporated within the business courses. The proposed revision is an improvement. Professor Rebecca Carroll, a member of the SEBA Task Force and incoming Chair of the Business Administration Department, added her judgment—as a rhetorician, practitioner of a classical liberal art—that the proposed curriculum is steeped in the liberal arts. Senator Bird moved for a secret ballot. The motion was defeated by a hand vote of 2-3 with 4 abstentions.A roll call vote was taken on the motion to accept the UEPC Report recommending the Proposal for Revision of the Curriculum in Business Administration.Tomas Gomez-AriasYesSam LindYesTom PoundstoneYesJoan PetersonYesKeith OgawaYesDavid BirdYesMichael BarramYesWilliam LeeYesLaura HeidYesThe motion passed by a vote of 9-0-0. As is the custom, the Chair voted "present."6. The meeting was adjourned at 3:30 p.m.Respectfully submitted,Cathe MichaloskyFaculty Governance Coordinator ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download