    |
Faculty Senate Meeting- January 29, 2003
Rollcall:
Excused: Allyn, Anthony, Braender, Conjura, Kamber, Palmer, Paul, Preti, Rao, Wu
Absent: Kobrynowicz
-Crofts introduces Susan Albertine, Dean of C&S and member of CAP, who volunteered to attend the meeting.
-Crofts mentions that four documents were distributed (Agenda, CAP report, CFA report, and SEB recommendation on writing) and says that the purpose of the meeting is to define the issues that the Senate will vote on at its next meeting on February 12. Discussion will be limited to four minutes per amendment.
-Crofts mentions the news in the morning papers of drastic cuts in the New Jersey higher education budget.
-Crofts says that earlier articles, especially one in the Star-Ledger on January 19, indicate that the college is definitely moving to the new curriculum; the Senate therefore has to move promptly if its recommendations are to carry weight. The CAP and CFA reports must be in finished form by spring break in early March.
-Edelbach asked about the costs of implementing the new curriculum; Crofts recalled that Provost Briggs had indicated that the transition from the old curriculum to the new would be relatively cost neutral.
-(special order) Ursula Wolz: Quantitative requirements. Page 3. Include Computer Science in Quantitative Reasoning Proficiency.
-Wolz noted wide support for computer literacy in survey of chairs. She mentioned the possibility of a Computer Science course that would engage students in "the fun stuff"; the goal of this would be reasoning and turning a vague idea into something that can be tested on a computer.
-Crofts asked whether the School of Science might be able to reach a consensus on the role of Computer Science in achieving Quantitative Reasoning Proficiency?or would the Senate be put in the position of having to arbitrate between CS and Math/Stat?
-Next matter was 2 amendments to the CFA report:
First, to amend Section III, part 1, page 12:
Cindy Curtis proposes revised language to replace the last two sentences:
The Committee recommends that the College seek to maximize the percentage of courses taught by its full-time faculty. At the same time, the College should set a minimum percentage of courses taught by full-time faculty in any given department. The College administration and the departments should work together to find ways to achieve the target percentages.
-Curtis said that the original language implies that departments were responsible for preventing excessive reliance on adjuncts; she suggested putting more responsibility on the college.
-Fradella agreed and wanted to vote on it but Crofts said that voting will take place at the next meeting.
Second, proposal to amend Section III, part 1, page 12:
Marcia O'Connell recommends adding the following sentence to the Curtis suggestion:
In addition, the administration must commit to creating a sufficient number of new faculty lines to accommodate the reduced courseload for all full-time faculty.
-O'Connell said that the provost was asked about more faculty lines; we should hold the administration to their commitment to increase faculty lines.
-Clifford proposed an amendment to change the language to "must honor its commitment"; however, the Senate agreed that there was never any such explicit commitment.
-Edelbach suggested including "full-time" in the amendment (reference to new faculty lines)
-Morrison said that Academic Affairs is working on trying to reduce FTE adjuncts and that the numbers are being crunched.
-Concluding discussion of the CFA report, Crofts noted that the SEB has identified a number of particular points which it will mention to CFA without seeking action from the full Senate. Included in this list will be equitable standards for counting student teaching supervision, better pay for adjuncts teaching enhanced courses, and preservation of existing percentage levels of teaching release for department chairs.
-The meeting moved on to CAP report
-First, Ruane Miller and Bob McMahan: Language Requirements. Pages 2 and 6. Exempt School of Art, Media, and Music from the language requirement (or allow each School to choose).
-Related proprosal (discussed with the above) Hank Fradella: Language Requirements. Pages 2 and 6. Consider expanding language requirement to include Business and all other Schools.
-R. Miller said that previous language requirements Arts & Sciences should not be imposed on AMM. Schools should have autonomy to choose whether they want a language requirement.
-Crofts asked Wright and San Pedro (faculty members from Modern Languages) whether the contemplated language proficiency standards would still require three semesters of study for a student just beginning the study of a language, or whether enhanced language courses might enable students to achieve appropriate proficiency with fewer than three semesters of study?
-Wright talked about the necessity of having three courses; said the intensity is already high, cannot be made higher, and that proficiency could not be gained in fewer than three semesters.
-San Pedro said that some students already come in with knowledge of a language and that they may reach proficiency sooner; she does not want to put a number on how long it takes to become proficient.
-McMahan said that the Music department recognizes the importance of language but it is an issue of time since it is a busy major.
-R. Miller agreed for the Art department.
-Knobler asked whether bilingual students with fluency in languages other than ones taught at the college could demonstrate such proficiency and meet the requirement; Wright said that the possibility exists.
-Fradella thought the language requirement should apply to all students at the college.
-Albertine said that people agreed when A&S was subdivided that the language requirement would apply to those schools previously a part of A&S.
-San Pedro said that liberal arts implies knowledge of a language; suggested making knowledge of a foreign language part of a requirement for admission to the college.
-Vandegrift said that business has not had language because of core requirements that have to be met.
-Konzal said that Elementary Education students are taking two full majors and that the School of Education cannot figure how to build in language study.
-R. Miller said Art has an issue with the language requirement for similar reasons; because it is an intense major.
-Wright said that to be well-rounded, language is necessary even though professional courses come first.
-Next, Don Vandegrift: Diversity Goals. Page 3-4. Replace two courses, one in Race and Ethnicity, and one in Gender, with one course, in Race and Ethnicity OR Gender.
-Vandegrift summarized his e-mail statement about diversity goals: CAP report includes excessive diversity requirements.
-Knobler said that race, ethnicity, and gender are not interchangeable.
-Fradella said that diversity requirements foster open-minded tolerant people.
-Nicolosi said that she takes offense at proposals to collapse the two requirements into a single requirement; using two classes will not inundate students.
-Vandegrift thinks that there is too much weight on certain topics and points of view, to the exclusion of others.
-Crofts noted that even though Vandegrift had articulated an unpopular point of view, that he had raised an issue that deserved to be considered and discussed: increased diversity requirements inevitably limit the variety of other matters a student might choose to study in Liberal Learning.
-Next, Don Vandegrift: Diversity Goals, Community Engagement. Page 4. Replace "fifteen hours of community work" with a figure based on the level of community work performed by the faculty.
-discussion included Beth Paul: Diversity Goals, Community Engagement. Page 4. Expand "fifteen hours of community work" to thirty, and specify that all Community Engaged Learning be tied to specific, credited course work.
-Vandegrift said that community engaged learning would work better if the faculty were involved since it would give students the feel that the faculty was in it with them.
-Leake, with reference to discussion of race and ethnicity and/or gender, said that we have to remember the context that students are coming from; many come from segregated schools and they are not going out into the same world they came from.
-Knobler mentioned that students see forced volunteerism as an imposed requirement rather than as a genuine experience that will have a long-lasting impact; the college needs to completely reexamine its approach and increased hours is not the answer.
-Behre talked about the heavy loads on students in the professional schools; said that we can't keep adding requirements without taking something else out.
-Bennett said that CEL should be very doable and it is essential.
-Carroll said that the faculty is already engaged in it so there should be no issue about it.
-Quinton, also with reference to discussion of race and ethnicity and/or gender, said that we are missing something with proposed diversity requirements; there are other things emerging to increase what diversity means.
-Next, Don Lovett: Breadth Requirements. Pages 7-9. Change Options A and B so that students would need to take THREE courses (not just two) in each of the three areas specified under Option C.
Discussion included: Hank Fradella: Breadth Requirements. Natural Sciences and Mathematics. Page 9. Keep the requirement for two natural sciences courses, but remove the stipulation that they be in different disciplines.
Discussion included: Don Vandegrift: Breadth Requirement C in Natural Science and Mathematics. Page 9. Allow more choice in selecting three courses: one natural science, one math or statistics, one natural science or math or statistics.
-Lovett said that Interdisciplinary Concentrations in Options A and B should include the same numbers of courses as the Breadth requirements in Option C.
-Knobler questioned whether Interdisciplinary Concentrations would be rigorous.
-Morrison said that CAP had created an unfair incentive to students to pursue an Interdisciplinary Concentration.
-Strassman doubted whether current or proposed requirements created either thinkers or good citizens.
-Wright expressed dissatisfaction with students being obliged to meet Gen Ed or Liberal Learning requirements; they are not enthusiastic but burdened.
Next, Senate Exec Board proposal on Writing Proficiency. Pages 5-6. Create option for non writing-intensive First Semester Seminars and Senior Capstones in particular majors, so long as there is a specific writing-instructive alternative or supplement arranged.
Discussion included additional SEB proposal on Writing Proficiency. Page 5. Remove the language about a third "W" course requirement ("a minimum of one writing-intensive course between the first and last years").
-Morrison and Crofts contended that the whole idea of curricular change was based on the assumption that students would be expected to write more. Under the circumstances it seemed redundant to require three writing-intensive courses.
-Venturo said that it makes sense to have writing designated courses ("W").
-Quinton said he doesn't agree with the notion that having more writing makes you a better writer.
-Carney said that the SEB was trying to simplify but she agreed with Venturo that we need to put teeth into what we are doing with required "W" courses.
-Clifford made the distinction between writing instructive and writing intensive.
-Fradella likes the idea making writing relevant to student majors but questions the ability of most faculty to deliver it; said that most faculty aren't trained in teaching writing.
-Bennett said that there are Rhetoric teachers that were never taught to teach writing; that the model of a gateway writing course had not worked; assuming that one class can do it is incorrect; that the college needed to create a culture that says that writing is important.
-Morrison said that the first year seminar should not be burdened with excessive expectations to cover writing instruction.
-Gross talked about writing immersion; said there should be writing components in every class; she does not support the idea of attaching a "W" to classes.
Meeting adjourned
