College Senate Bulletin

Bulletin 6
6 October 2000

Upcoming Meetings




Date


Room

Time

12 October

Executive Committee

South 309

12:50 p.m.

17 October

All College Meeting/College Senate

Newton 204

4 p.m.

26 October

Executive Committee

South 309

12:50 p.m.

31 October

Student Affairs Committee

South 110

4 p.m.

14 November

College Senate

Newton 204

4 p.m.

5 December

College Senate

Newton 204

4 p.m.

__________________________________________________________________

Correspondence: Christopher C. Leary, Department of Mathematics, South 324D
E-mail: leary@geneseo.edu Phone: 245-5383
__________________________________________________________________

Contents




Comments from the Chair
Nominations
Minutes
Undergraduate Curriculum Committee--26 September 2000
Supporting Document
Deletion of Math 214, Applied Calculus II
Undergraduate Academic Policies, Core and Review Committee--26 September 2000
Student Affairs Committee--3 October 2000
Advertisements


Comments from the Chair

Nominations

Chairs of Departments are reminded that nominations for the Faculty Personnel Committee are due today, 6 October 2000. Nominations should be submitted to the Chair of the Nominations Committee, Pat Murphy, in the Department of Sociology.


Minutes

Undergraduate Curriculum Committee--26 September 2000


Members present: B. Brennan, J. Curran, S. Fitzsimens, L. Hall, D. Hill, H. Howe, K. Jones,
J. Kirkwood, J Fowler-Morse, O. Nicodemi, M. Stolee, R. M. Skerritt

Visitors: S. Bailey,

Meeting was called to order by T. Bazzett at 4:08.
T. Bazzett welcomed all new members.

MATH 214: A motion was accepted and seconded for approval of the proposal for deletion of MATH 214. There was no discussion. The proposal was unanimously approved.

T. Bazzett then asked S. Bailey to address the Committee regarding changes to the general education requirement as proposed by the SUNY Board of Trustees. S. Bailey informed the Committee that the office of the Dean was currently working with the History Department in an effort to determine what courses may be offered to satisfy the U.S. History requirements of the BOT. She also provided members with an information sheet outlining the general education requirements. There were several questions as to "why" the requirements had been proposed and what options students might have to test out of the requirement. S. Bailey responded that there is not necessarily an assumption of history knowledge deficiency by the BOT in imposing this requirement. She also responded that currently, incoming students may transfer AP credit to satisfy the requirement. There is currently, however, no way to "test out" of the requirement.
M. Stolee noted that the new requirement, with few alternatives currently available, has severely stressed the resources of the history department. This stress has come in the form of relatively heavy student loads assigned to adjuncts and the need for full time faculty to concentrate efforts on teaching the two history courses now approved to satisfy the requirement (HIST150 & HIST151). She expressed concern that even redistributing students into additional history courses (tentatively to be approved for the requirement) would not significantly relieve the additional burden on the History department. J. Fowler-Morse asked if courses outside of the History department have been considered as possible alternatives to satisfy the requirement (e.g. history of music). S. Bailey said that such nontraditional history courses as well as courses outside the department involving development of the US society (e.g. US politics) are being considered.

After conclusion of discussion related to GenEd requirements, T. Bazzett asked that Committee members consider offering suggestions this semester for updating and possibly streamlining the process of proposal consideration by the UCC. He noted that during the Fall 1999 semester (a "bulletin semester") there had been numerous complaints by the Committee regarding inconsistencies and errors in proposals that made a very difficult semester even more laborious. With a relatively light semester anticipated, T. Bazzett said he would like to work with the office of the Dean to make appropriate changes to the proposal application process. In addition, the Provost has specifically requested that proposals for new courses include student learning outcomes as a part of a "master syllabus" for the course. These items, it was felt, would be particularly useful for new faculty members joining a department who were required to teach a course already on the books. There was general consensus among the Committee that a particularly problematic area last fall was the inclusion of too much detail on individual syllabi and that a more general master syllabus with stated learning outcomes could be useful in reducing unnecessary information. Several members also pointed out that forms received last fall were often messy and in disarray, some containing a mix of handwritten and typewritten information, some with lengthy supplementary material attached, and so on. T. Bazzett noted that the advent of on-line forms, and the opportunity for departments to download forms may reduce such clutter. S. Bailey suggested that the Dean's office could require proposals be submitted electronically, in an effort to reduce handwriting and unnecessary attachments. This suggestion was well received by the Committee. In addition, some Committee members suggested that on-line forms be formatted so that they are easily distinguished from the text of the proposal. M. Stolee suggested that members try to brainstorm as many suggestions as possible from which the Committee could then decide which would be most useful. T. Bazzett agreed and asked that members try to think of such changes before the next meeting. He asked that ideas be written down for that meeting, or e-mailed to his address.

Meeting was adjourned at 4:50 P.M.


Supporting Document

Deletion of Math 214, Applied Calculus II

On April 26, 2000, the Department of Mathematics voted unanimously to delete the course


Math 214 Applied Calculus II,




from the list of offerings of the department effective immediately. Consequently, this course will not be offered in the spring semester of 2001, or thereafter.

Justification

This course was designed by the Mathematics Department in collaboration with the School of Business for students planning to attend graduate school in economics or to seek an MBA. It appears that these students are enrolled in the regular, more rigorous, calculus sequence Math 221 and 222. The following table documents the enrollment in the course since its initial offering

Year Enrollment


1997 1
1998 5
1999 3
2000 0

Due to the low enrollment and the apparent lack of need or interest in this offering, the Mathematics Department can no longer justify devoting faculty time to it. The School of Business has been consulted and does not object to the deletion. We have the following understanding:

  • The math department will drop Math 214, based on low enrollments in the course.

  • School of Business students who are pretty sure they might want to go to graduate school will be advised into the Math 221, 222 sequence.

  • School of Business students who make up their minds later that they want to go to grad school, who have taken Math 213 instead of the 221, 222 sequence, will be allowed into Math 222 with 221 waived, on a case by case basis.

  • The School of Business will give the Math Department a list of those students taking Math 222 with Math 213 as the prerequisite instead of Math 221. The instructors for Math 222 can monitor the success of these students and provide feedback on how well this approach is working.


Undergraduate Academic Policies, Core and Review Committee--26 September 2000

Attendance:

C. Filice, E. Gillin (Chair), W. Gohlman, H. Hoops, S. Iyer, S. Kirsh, S. Landes, J. Lerch, W. Lofquist, A. Macula, D. Metz, J. Mounts, J. Over, J. Pacella, C. Truglia, T. Greenfield (guest).

The meeting was called to order by Ed Gillin at 4:02.

The agenda consisted of three items.


Chair’s Report:
Brief introduction and request that W. Gohlman serve as a committee procedural expert.

New Business:

1) Request to Policy Committee to consider limiting SUNY-Geneseo general education requirements to no more than 40 hours (see below for memorandum).


From K. Fletcher, Dept. of Physics and Astronomy:

As a result of last night's Senate decision, the General Education Core requirements have been increased by 0, 3, 6, or (in highly unusual cases) 9 credit hours. In light of this and in light of the fact that we must still meet the Board of Trustees requirements on American History and oral discourse, I'd like to recommend that the members of next year's Policy committee consider the following proposal (or something like it) at their first meeting next year:

"No student at SUNY-Geneseo will be required to complete more than 40 credit hours in order to satisfy their General Education Core requirements."

40 credit hours is one-third of the 120 hours required for graduation, which seems to me to be a reasonable proportion. However, the Policy committee may want this number to be some other value. My main interest is to encourage people to realize that when they add additional requirements they're taking away something from the curriculum (like student choices).

The initial discussion focused on if this problem was the jurisdiction of the Policy Committee, or if the General Education Committee, before Policy, should first consider it; or if Policy and General Education should work on a core requirement limit together.

Macula, Metz, and Iyer suggested Policy work on the proposal.

Lofquist asked for clarification if Geneseo could or should limit core. It was stated that the core requirements at Geneseo exceed SUNY requirements.

Greenfield offered that the General Education Committee is going to address aspects of this issue this semester in their discussion on major program requirements.

Iyer asked if general education limits are a Policy decision.

Gillin indicated that Executive Committee recommended a discussion in coordination with General Education.

Mounts, concurred by Kirsh, suggested that a package of major requirements is a better perspective.

Macula and Greenfield recalled that in following general procedures of General Education Committee to Policy Committee to Senate that General Education had recommended that no core classes could fall within a major, which was then defeated by Policy. The discussions of the Curriculum Task Force were of the opinion that the core should not get larger.

Gohlman pointed to the fact that SUNY has imposed new requirements.

Truglia offered the insight that good students should not find the core daunting.

Greenfield offered that incoming students are bringing more and more AP credits and many do not have excessive general education requirements.

Kirsch asked what a cut in core requirements would reflect in faculty and staffing.

Greenfield pointed to the flexibility of INTD 105 offerings and noted that no reduction in lines is anticipated. Really.

Lofquist suggested that it be determined if a problem exists before discussing a policy in committee. Metz, Filice, and Landes concurred.

Iyer pointed out that the number of general education requirement ranges from 28 to 44.

Macula stated that core requirements affect math and science majors more than other disciplines, resulting in diminished research opportunities due to need to fulfill general education requirements. (Few math and science majors can take advantage of study abroad programs in a four-year program as well.) Iyer and Hoops concurred.

Gillin asked for a motion to establish formal discussion. None was forth coming, so the issue was essentially passed on to General Education and noted that Policy could address this issue at a later time; this discussion served to place the issue in the college senate record.

2) Clarification of syllabus policy.

In fall 1997 the College Senate recommend the following policy that: "a course outline …. be distributed to the students during the first week of the semester."

The basic question is must distribution be in the form of a hard copy, or was an accessible on-line syllabus sufficient.

Macula made the following motion, which was seconded: "A paper copy of the course syllabus must be provided in the first week of classes."

Discussion then followed the course of suggestions that: a) there was no need for a paper copy given student accessibility to computers, b) general computer literacy of students, c) functionality of paper copies, and d) that this is the transition period to the electronic age.

Mounts inquired if this policy would affect placing assignments on-line versus paper copies.

Iyer pointed discussion back to the motion on the floor.

A motion to call the question was entertained, and passed unanimously.

The motion of Macula passed: 10 favor; 3 opposed; 2 abstentions.

Introduction and farewells were made.

Meeting adjourned at 4:58.

Respectfully submitted,

D. Jeffrey Over


Student Affairs Committee--3 October 2000

Present: JeeLoo Liu(Chair), Hisham Almubaid, Ming-Mei Chang, Kim Davies, Tom Feeley, Johnnie Ferrell, Jennifer Guyer, Gregg Hartvigsen, Tamara Hurlburt, Chris Wixson, Berkeley Brigs, Steven Brown, Douglas (DJ) Gallup, Jen Garvey, Amy Happ, Laura Stellrecht.

Excused: Michael Oberg

Absent: Denise Sullivan

Guest: Tabitha Buggiehunt

The Chair called the meeting to order at 4:01 PM.

Chair's Report:
JeeLoo Liu first reported her findings with the Parking Committee. In our last meeting, questions were raised concerning student parking on the North Side and parking tickets issued during off hours. Bob Ossont from the Parking Committee explained that there is a physical limitation for parking on the North Side. But the good news is that parking tickets are no longer issued for cars parked in the regular lots from 4:30 PM to midnight.

JeeLoo Liu then moved on to the issue concerning the College Union. She reported that according to Ken Levison, any major renovation of the Union would involve asbestos removal, and could lead to the closing down of the Union for a year. According to Bob Bonfiglio, there is a list of Capital Projects for the campus supplied by different administrative units. The Union is currently the number 3 priority out of 22 items for the Office of Student and Campus Life. No one denied that the Union, especially the Ballroom, is in great need of renovation. The question to be pursued was what role the SAC should play in pushing for the renovation of the Union. JeeLoo Liu reported Chris Leary's suggestion that the SAC work with Kathy Trainor to come up with a plan for the renovation. After a more detailed list of proposed renovations is made, Bob Bonfiglio can submit a one-time budget request to the College.

Finally, JeeLoo Liu reported that she received an e-mail message from David Geiger, who expressed the Middle States Committee's interest in our project of doing a survey on faculty involvement. The two questions they would most like to receive input on are how our students feel about the kind of advising they get, and how accessible the faculty are.

Denise Sullivan's Report (in absentia):
Denise Sullivan had a meeting with Kathy Trainor, and found that there is a list of Capital Projects for the campus and the College Union ranks high on that list. The project includes:

  1. renovate the ballroom

  2. construct "hanging out " space in college union with

    1. coffee house capabilities

    2. dance club capabilities

    3. late night gathering spot

  3. expand student club and organization office space and common meeting areas

  4. create film screening space

  5. expand conference and training space

  6. reallocate and expand office space for Center for Community

  7. complete asbestos abatement in union

  8. link to Mary Jemison

The Committee decided to follow Chris Leary's suggestion and form a subcommittee to work with Kathy Trainor on a detailed plan for renovation. Steven Brown, Jen Garvey and Johnnie Ferrell volunteered to serve on this subcommittee.

Michael Oberg's Report (in absentia):
Michael Oberg spoke with Tom Bell in CAS regarding Smart Cards, and found him willing to help. Tom Bell said that the cards originally cost between $5 and $10 each in terms of material and processing time. This year, however, a microchip has been added to the card and that increases the cost per card about $5 for each one. Replacement of a card with a microchip is not as easy, since CAS needs to go into each file and update the information. There is some programming time involved. Tom Bell felt that this price was pretty reasonable. The highest figure he has seen for the replacement of cards was $50.00, which he considered extreme. $15.00 for cards, he feels, if fair, and consistent with what other institutions are doing. Tom Bell also explained that defective cards would be replaced for free. Tom said that if students treat them well and carefully, as they would a credit card, the cards should last. Tom said he would be willing to provide us with more information if we need it.

Discussion:
Jen Garvey remarked that the chips added to the Smart cards are not being used yet because most of the machines are not equipped to read the chips. So students are paying for something for which they have no use. Steven Brown remarked that the comparison to credit cards was poorly done, since people wouldn't need to use their credit cards ten to fifteen times a day. Due to heavy usage, Smart cards wear off much more easily than credit cards. Gregg Hartvigsen asked if the information about free replacement was well known to students. Jen Garvey said that students would often have to argue with CAS to get a free replacement. Gregg Hartvigsen said that since CAS had promised to exchange defective cards for free, we should make this news known to all students. JeeLoo Liu suggested having CAS state in writing their conditions for free replacement of Smart cards.

On the topic of CAS, JeeLoo Liu brought up other student complaints about food services on campus. For one thing, the price seems too high and does not reflect quality. For another, the hours are inconvenient for students. Dining halls stop their regular dinner service at 7 PM, when a lot of students cannot be back before seven. Their remaining option for dinner would then be Taco Bell. Johnnie Ferrell also reported student complaints about the limited hours of the coffee shop in the library and the lack of vending machines for drinks. The discussion went back to the issue of cost. Steven Brown questioned how CAS could be charging more than local stores when it is buying things in bulks. JeeLoo Liu asked if CAS was a profit-making organization, and the opinions were split. Gregg Hartvigsen suggested that we get an account from CAS, have it published on the Lamron so that everyone can see how CAS spends its money. Ming-Mei Chang suggested that we invite Tom Bell to our meeting next time, so that we can clarify a lot of our questions with him. Everyone concurred. JeeLoo Liu promised to contact Tom Bell to see if he could come next time. In the meantime, students senators will get information from their friends to see how other institutions handle their debit cards and food service.

The next topic concerned the different surveys we decided to do in our last meeting: on student-faculty interactions and on bias/discrimination on campus. JeeLoo Liu asked if a survey on freshmen experience should be put together with the survey on faculty involvement. Tom Feeley didn't think so. Ming-Mei Chang remarked that freshmen go through a lot of adjustment and we should find out what they think. If we add a separate survey on freshmen experience, we would then be doing three surveys. Tom Feeley raised the question whether we would be spreading ourselves too thin in doing so many surveys. JeeLoo Liu asked for other opinions, and the members eventually decided to just focus on the two surveys we initially decided on.

On the issue of faculty-student interactions, questions were raised concerning the definition of 'interactions' or 'involvement.' Tom Feeley remarked that terms such as 'accessibility,' 'availability' are all pretty vague. Ming-Mei Chang remarked that in her informal survey with her students, some students said that faculty should not just strive to be "available"; they should also strive to be "lovable" and "likable." JeeLoo Liu said that the goal is to find out students' degree of satisfaction in advisement or in their office hours visits. Gregg Hartvigsen remarked that students may simply be unsatisfied for different reasons. He also asked what we plan to do with the results.

On the issue of bias and discrimination, Johnnie Ferrell brought up the problem of age discrimination: older students seem to get different treatment. Jennifer Guyer remarked that older students feel that other students don't want them there and thus they are quite alienated. Chris Wixson mentioned that he came from a large university where problems of discrimination were quite severe, but Geneseo doesn't seem to have those obvious forms of discrimination.

The Committee members then discussed the method of survey. Tom Feeley said that to get a data that we could make use of, the answers must be quantitative. We could each do a survey in our own classes. Since the Committee consists of faculty from different disciplines, we could get a fairly representative set of data. JeeLoo Liu said that to be fair to other students, we should also try to have a general campus-wide survey. Gregg Hartvigsen suggested setting up a web-link with CIT, and students can just go visit the page to fill up the survey. All the quantitative inputs will be calculated right away. This idea was enthusiastically taken up by Committee members and JeeLoo Liu asked Gregg Hartvigsen to discussed the details with CIT.

The remaining issue was what kind of questions we should put down in our surveys. JeeLoo Liu asked for volunteers to work on a draft for each survey. Chris Wixson, Berkeley Briggs, Tom Feeley and Gregg Hartvigsen volunteered for the survey on faculty-student interactions. Kim Davies, DJ Gallup, Ming-Mei Chang and Johnnie Ferrell volunteered for the survey on biases and discriminations. JeeLoo Liu asked everyone to submit a draft to her by next Friday. She will compare these drafts and come up with a tentative final survey. She will then circulate these tentative survey forms to all Committee members for approval.

In Summary:

  1. The SAC will try to invite Tom Bell from CAS to our next meeting.

  2. Steven Brown, Jen Garvey and Johnnie Ferrell will work with Kathy Trainor to come up with a suggested renovation plan for the College Union.

  3. Chris Wixson, Berkeley Briggs, Tom Feeley and Gregg Hartvigsen will draft a survey on faculty-student interactions.

  4. Kim Davies, DJ Gallup, Ming-Mei Chang and Johnnie Ferrell will draft a survey on biases and discriminations on campus.

  5. Gregg Hartvigsen will be in charge of designing the web link for these two surveys.

JeeLoo Liu announced that our next meeting will be held on October 31, at 4 PM, South 110.

The meeting adjourned at 5:03 PM.

Respectfully submitted,

JeeLoo Liu

Chair, SAC