Voting Members Present: Paul Adams, Mike Bailey, Frank Chaplen, Alix Gitelman, Robert Iltis, Sara Jameson, Matt Kennedy, Prem Mathew, Kate MacTavish, Richard Nafshun, Daniel Stroud (via phone), Ben Tribelhorn
Ex-Officio Members Present: Bill Bogley (Academic Affairs), Dianna Fisher (Ecampus), Nancy Laurence (Registrar’s Office), Steven Sowell (University Libraries)
Liaison Members Present: Clay Torset (Academic Advising Council), John Greydanus (Instructional Technology), Daniel Stroud (OSU-Cascades via phone)
Guests: Gary Beach, Rebecca Mathern
Report from the Chair – Mike Bailey
Report from Academic Affairs – Bill Bogley
- The BS in Computer Sciences with an Applied Option which was passed by the Curriculum Council via email vote will be considered at April OUS Provosts Council
- Proposals to extend programs to OSU-Cascades are now required to be approved by the OUS Provost’s Council, per Sabah.
Botany & Plant Pathology Undergraduate Program Review
Curriculum Council Reviewer: Daniel Stroud
- External review – November 30, 2012
This is a continuation of the discussion on March 1.
The undergraduate program review was approved by the Curriculum Council, but there were concerns related to paying GTAs and GRAs via returned overhead. Daniel stated that the issue it is included in the overall review report. The Curriculum Council was discussing the undergraduate report, but it is listed as a recommendation in the combined graduate program review and undergraduate program review.
Category I Proposals –
- Rename an Academic Program Proposal – BS in Forest Management to BS in Forestry #85162
Curriculum Council Reviewers: Robert Iltis, Ben Tribelhorn
- Concerns included:
- Ben noted the desire in the proposal to offer courses via Ecampus early in the program; the proposers were advised to either remove the Ecampus references or delay the proposal until the courses are worked out with Ecampus.
- Robert noted that FOR221 is required and appeared to be offered only online to allow community college students to take the course. The proposers need to address these issues before the proposal can go forward.
- Dianna felt that the rename title didn’t adequately address the scope of the proposal because new courses are involved, options are being dropped, majors are changing, a pro school is being added, etc.
- Gary stated that the consensus during the Academic Program Review meeting is that, although the proposal is complex, it is a name change. He noted the desire is to process one proposal rather than multiple proposals.
- Ben felt that the feasibility of doing a pro school and completing in four years does not seem possible. Because many courses required in pro school are only available during the junior year, a five-year major is being enforced.
- Ben requested liaison from Business.
- Mike asked the reviewers to ask the proposers if there is any overlap with PSU and/or UO.
- Dianna noted they included in the budget Ecampus funding for courses for which they have not yet requested or received approval.
- Is it reasonable to expect students to wait an entire year if they weren’t accepted in fall? Gary reiterated that the proposers hoped that more community college students would attend.
- Are the proposers planning to develop articulation agreements with community colleges, and with which colleges? Clay stated that the articulation agreements were in place. Gary stated that all articulation agreements with the community colleges have expired, and this was mentioned when meeting with the Curriculum Council.
Action: The reviewers will forward concerns to proposers and will forward responses to the Curriculum Council for review; it will be determined at a later date whether to invite the proposers back to the Curriculum Council.
- Merge Academic Units Proposal – Merge Biochemistry and Biophysics with Microbiology (School of Life Sciences) #84452 Curriculum Council Reviewers: Frank Chaplen, Richard Nafshun
- Richard noted that the organizational chart on page 7 of the PDF makes it seem that one unit has taxation without representation; Botany & Plant Pathology (BPP) doesn’t feel that having ‘input’ is adequate. It seems strange that BPP has such a vested interest, but they are outside of the proposal because they are not in the College of Science. Do we invite both groups back to the Curriculum Council and ask pointed questions? The proposal seems to exploit one unit without the unit being represented.
- The College of Public Health & Human Sciences (CPHHS) also has an objection to the use of the term ‘health and life sciences’ and connections have not been made with them.
- Nancy felt that this proposal does not fit the model to consolidate, work together, and eliminate administrative layers.
- It was noted that the departments would still be operating independently.
- Options? It’s the responsibility of the proposers to prepare a proposal that will pass Curriculum Council and Executive Committee. This is an opportunity to work with the proposers to create a proposal that will be approved.
- Gary stated that there have been multiple behind the scenes meetings including deans who have met both independently and collectively with Sabah to discuss their positions. He felt there is no compromise.
- Robert mentioned that the Biology chair stated he was fine with the proposal and was going to obtain liaison letters; if the letters are not positive, it’s a deal breaker.
- Ben questioned the student perception and suggested perhaps looking at peer institutions to determine how they handle Biology courses and determine whether OSU’s model is similar to other institutions.
- Frank noted that the budget is $10,000 for 2,300 students, which seemed low. Because there are not a lot of positives in the proposal, why do it?
- Mike noted that the organizational chart doesn’t seem to match the proposal.
- There was a suggestion for a rename to Department of Biology and Zoology.
- There are about 20 Biology courses taught by BPP.
- What if ‘Program of Biology’ remained? Proposers would still need to address other issues.
- What is the motivation behind the proposal? On page 4, it states that the management structure is more streamlined, but that doesn’t appear to be the case – what makes it more streamlined?
- Robert – the whole idea of reorganization was to eliminate departments, but the proposal does not eliminate departments. An option is to return the proposal and ask the proposers to revise the proposal to eliminate departments and create unit coordinators, or something similar in place of department heads.
- How would BPP interact in that structure? BPP will still pay for GTAs and some faculty with returned overhead.
- Richard’s recap:
- How is this more streamlined (page 4 of the PDF) when no department heads are being eliminated?
- The proposed school is retaining departments and department heads, which seems to just formalize the structure between three departments.
- What is the rationale of the organizational chart on page 7?
- Given BPP’s participation in the program, it’s not understood why they have representation only at the executive level, but not at the curricular level.
- The returned overhead issue needs to be addressed.
- Letters of support are needed.
- Need to address concerns from CPHHS related to the name.
- Why was ‘life sciences’ chosen – is it the correct term given its usage elsewhere?
Action: Richard will draft a memo containing the above concerns and send to Mike and Vickie. Additionally, Richard will draft a statement for Mike to indicate to the proposers that they need to address the issues raised in liaison letters. Mike has indicated to the proposers that, if the proposal had been voted on, it would have been rejected.
Matters Arising
- Dianna reported that Lois Brooks and Dave King, on behalf of the Instructional Technology Governance Committee, appointed her and Cheryl Middleton to the Next Generation Learning Technology Task Force to investigate use of Blackboard’s Learning Management System and other technology use for faculty. The blog with updates are available for viewing online. Contact Dianna if you wish to participate on the task force.
Minutes prepared by Vickie Nunnemaker, Faculty Senate staff
OREGON STATE UNIVERSITY
Open search box