College of Arts & Sciences Planning Committee

Friday, March 23

Alumni House

3:30-5:00 pm

AGENDA

I.    Approval of Minutes

II.    ASCC Motion to adopt the BPS program (Members of the A&C PC)

III.    Elections for CAS Chair for 2012-2014

IV.    Elections for CAS planning committee members (2)

V.    Reminder for Nominations for Distinguished Teaching Award (Bob and Scott will follow-up with written/email reminder)

VI.    Dean’s remarks
        A.  UC update and transition plans
        B.  Introduction of Strategic Priorities for discussion

SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIALS

Appendix A:  Draft Minutes for Approval, February CAS Meeting [pg. 2]
Appendix B:  BPS Information Packet (Item II on the agenda) [pg. 12]
Appendix C:  Calls for Nominations (Items III, IV & V on the agenda) [pg. 14]

CURRENT A&S PLANNING COMMITTEE MEMBERS

Ex officio:
o    Robbin Crabtree, Dean
o    Sally O'Driscoll, Chair of CAS (2010-2012) – Bob Epstein, Acting-Chair spring 2012
o    Scott Lacy, Secretary of CAS (2011-2013)

Elected (4 members):
o    Amanda Harper-Leatherman, Natural Sciences (2010-2012)
o    Eric Mielants, Social & Behavioral Sciences (2011-2012)
o    Marti LoMonaco, Humanities (2011-2013)
o    Glenn Sauer, at-large (2011-2013)

APPENDIX A: DRAFT MINUTES (FOR APPROVAL)

10 February 2012

Alumni House

Prof. Epstein (Chair, CAS Committee) called the meeting to order at 3:39p.m. There were approximately 71 faculty members present. 

Proxies submitted: Laura McSweeney as Matt Colemans’s proxy

Manyul Im as Joan Weiss’ proxy

Susan Rakowitz as Irene Mulvey’s proxy

Susan Rakowitz as Joe Dennen’s proxy

I. Approval of Minutes

MOVED by Prof. Lakeland and seconded by Prof. Sapp, that the minutes of the November 11^th meeting be approved as submitted.

Motion PASSED [64 in favor, 0 opposed, 7 abstained]

CORRECTIONS: no proposed amendments or corrections submitted

II. ASCC Motion to adopt the Bachelor of Professional Studies (BPS) program

Chair briefly introduced the ASCC motion.

MOVED by Prof. Sauer and seconded by Prof. Sapp that the Bachelor of Professional Studies previously offered by University College continue to be offered under the auspices of the College of Arts & Sciences.

Chair opened the floor for discussion.

Dean Crabtree provided brief historical notes on the BPS motion. She explained that the Committee on University College made the original suggestion that the CAS look at adopting the BPS. The Academic Council Subcommittee on University College Matters made the same recommendation, and sent it to the A&S Curriculum Committee (ASCC) to discuss. The ASCC considered the question of adopting the BPS and voted in favor; the committee focused its review on curricular issues (not governance structure). Prof. Johnson, Curriculum Committee Chair, confirmed that the committee reviewed exclusively curricular issues.

The Dean added that due to accreditation requirements, the Dolan School of Business cannot house the BPS, but the DSB will accept BPS students into classes as they currently do (in the event that the CAS adopted the BPS), and that there would be no enrollment constraints to that.

Prof. Sapp asked for information on enrollment numbers and advising impact of BPS.

Assoc. Dean Perkus responded:

§ 62 current students (declared as BPS)

§ 12-15 BPS graduates per year, on average

§ Average number of BPS graduates/year has been declining in past years

§ Recent decline in BPS numbers will continue, barring new marketing campaign

§ In the event that CAS would adopt the BPS program, the annual number of BPS graduates per year would likely be 12-15.

Associate Dean Perkus stated that all part time students currently enrolled at Fairfield have a modified core program. He said that the proposed changes for part-time students (those that have been accepted by Academic Council and going to the General Faculty in March for discussion) would require all other part-time students, that is, those pursuing degrees in CAS, DSB, and SOE to have the same core curriculum as their full-time counterparts, with the exception of the BPS, which exists for a particular market of students.

Prof. Bowen expressed frustration with the motion because background information on the BPS motion was distributed to CAS faculty only 24 prior to the meeting. Several professors voiced agreement with Bowen’s remarks. The Dean affirmed that this was a mistake.

Prof. Johnson noted that the motion was intended by the proposers as a means to procure feedback from the CAS faculty prior to further deliberations about the possible adoption of the BPS program.

Dean Crabtree explained that the ASCC deemed the BPS governance structure as beyond their purview, and as a result they forwarded the matter to the CAS Planning Committee. The Planning Committee decided to send the motion to adopt the BPS to the CAS faculty meeting for feedback and for a vote, and then to consider the will of the faculty regarding the appropriate governance structure for the BPS (if adopted). The plan was to see bring back a motion on governance structure for a vote at the March CAS meeting.

The Chair asked if a vote on the motion to adopt the BPS was absolutely necessary today.

The Dean said that if the vote is delayed until March we could continue discussing the issue today and folks could consider the supplemental documents over the next month. She discussed her original ambivalence about the adoption of the BPS program and how several faculty members and faculty committees convinced her to support the idea; over the past few months, multiple committees have voted in support of or otherwise encouraged the adoption of the BPS program by the College of Arts & Sciences. Dean Crabtree also suggested that upon adoption of the BPS, the College could develop a schedule to formally review, revise, and/or rename the program. But we’d have to adopt it first as the process for program revision is different from the process for consideration of the administrative home for the program.

Prof. Lakeland asked if the CAS adoption of the BPS might inadvertently facilitate the migration of some full-time CAS students into a BPS. Specifically, he asked what would prevent a full-time CAS student from transitioning to a BPS track?

Assoc. Dean Perkus answered that nothing currently exists to discourage or prevent a full-time student from transferring to the BPS program except for the fact that such a student would not earn a Bachelors of Arts (BA)/Bachelors of Science (BS); instead the student would earn the Bachelors of Professional Studies (BPS). Dean Perkus added that the College could develop administrative rules to close any potential BPS loopholes that faculty and the Dean perceive are currently problematic.

The Dean explained that the BPS serves multiple populations in different ways. Originally the BPS was designed for older/returning/working students seeking a second chance at completing a college degree. Now the BPS serves a second major category of students; that is, younger students who shift from full-time to part-time status at Fairfield for a variety of reasons (often medical or economic) along with those in their early 20s who have dropped out of other colleges for whatever reason.

Prof. Bowen noted that in the supplementary materials provided for today’s CAS meeting that Associate Dean Perkus states that approximately half of current BPS students are the type of student for which the BPS program was designed (older, re-entry to college); the other half are students who started in a BA or BS degree program and, for one reason or another, ended up in BPS.

Prof. Lopez asked if the rationale for CAS adopting and offering the BPS is altruistic (serving students seeking a second chance) or economic.

Dean Crabtree said that the BPS is in fact a low-cost, community-oriented program, and that many faculty have expressed deep support for these students. She also explained that the CAS stands to gain from the adoption of the BPS. She noted that, currently, most courses taken by BPS students are in the College, and most advisors for BPS capstone experiences are in the College, but we don’t get credit for the revenues generated. If we adopt the program, the College would receive credit for generating BPS revenue (and our share of that), and we would have the authority to oversee the program, formally review it according to our Guidelines for Academic Program Review in the College, propose program revisions, manage marketing campaigns, etc. She also noted that the program itself is not resource intensive – BPS students take open seats in existing courses, and are already advised through all the usual means. The Dean drew attention to what she described as the two big questions that faculty should closely examine when considering the BPS: academic integrity and faculty oversight/leadership.

Dean Im spoke in favor of the motion. He said that the BPS program expands the mission of the university in positive ways. In particular he noted that BPS students in his courses bring desirable diversity into his classes.

Prof. Rakowitz spoke in opposition to the motion. She said that we offer a strong liberal arts program, characterized not only by breadth of the core curriculum, but by adding depth to their liberal arts education by completing concentrated majors. Because there are no majors for the BPS (there are instead, interdisciplinary concentrations that students propose) she expressed concern that the BPS could potentially “water down” the Fairfield brand. She asked how well we are serving BPS students by offering a program without a major.

Prof. Bowen asked for clarification on the BPS program. She asked what is a BPS major, how many classes is a BPS major, and how many semesters of coursework must be completed at Fairfield University?

Associate Dean Perkus explained that the BPS student essentially pursues a “Liberal Studies” concentration. This is a 10-course “major” consisting of nine courses in at minimum of two disciplines plus a capstone course. He said that all current BPS concentrations are essentially different versions of the same liberal arts major. He added that for the simplicity of the motion, we are only considering having only a liberal studies concentration for the BPS. If adopted, the College faculty could look at appropriate revisions.

Prof. Bowen expressed concern that the BPS program does not provide students with the opportunity for depth in a specific discipline.

Prof. Braginsky spoke in favor of the motion. She said that she works with BPS students regularly, and that the BPS is not a “watered down” degree. Prof. Braginsky stated that Fairfield University does well by its BPS students, and that many of our BPS students are heroic.

Prof. Abbot requested clarification on the number of classes/semesters that BPS students are required to complete at Fairfield.

Prof. Mielants CALLED THE QUESTION.

Calling the question FAILED (11 yes votes did not meet the 2/3 requirement). Discussion of the motion continued.

Prof. Lakeland spoke in favor of the motion. He, like Prof. Braginsky, applauds our BPS students, but he expressed concern that a BPS offered by the CAS could become a “second best” way to finish a Fairfield education.

Prof. Pearson spoke in favor of the motion and agreed with Prof. Lakeland’s comments, with the caveat that quality control was in order.

MOVED by Prof. Pearson and seconded by Prof. Keenan to postpone a decision on the BPS adoption until the next meeting of the CAS.

Prof. Sauer noted that many committees on the campus have seen the value of adopting the BPS program, but he would also like to hear from CAS colleagues as a whole before committees and individuals devote more time to this issue.

Prof. Davidson spoke in favor of this motion to postpone, and explained that informational materials on the BPS issue were distributed one day prior to today’s CAS meeting. He said he was concerned with the idea of offering a less-marketable and less thorough degree program through the CAS. He requested more time to fully consider the ethical dimensions of offering or adopting such a program.

Prof. Im asked Associate Dean Perkus to describe our BPS students.

Perkus responded as follows: the BPS is not a top-tier degree. Our BPS students typically people who have struggled, want a Fairfield University degree, and will accept an alternative path to that goal. Our BPS students are: women in their late 20s to 40s, mothers, laid-off people seeking new careers, and various professionals working to transition into new fields. Associate Dean Perkus added that the BPS will never be a large program. He said we could consider ways to steer BPS-seeking students toward our B.A. and B.S. programs, and housing the BPS in the CAS may support such a process.

Prof. Rosivach reported that he was involved in recent committee discussions on the BPS issue. Specifically he participated in discussions on a modified Core program for the BPS. One rationale for a modified BPS Core was the lack of evening language course offerings. A second rationale was the restricted schedules of many BPS students. A third rationale was the transfer issue.

Prof. Rosivach further explained that many of our colleagues’ objections express concern over academic erosion. If anything, Rosavich said, this proposal establishes new barriers to the academic erosion. He added that some students are currently getting Fairfield degrees with this modified core. He said that the BPS has been a backdoor approach for a weakened core, and this motion corrects that. With an advising component managed by the CAS, faculty could easily steer BPS students to stronger programs, as appropriate.

Prof. Abbot asked what happens to the BPS is we vote yes or no today.

Dean Crabtree explained that a “no” vote would most likely lead to the eventual closure of the BPS program if the University College is closed. All current BPS students would be permitted to continue and complete their programs under currently existing guidelines. The Committee on University College would be responsible for shepherding such a program closure, if it became necessary.

Dean Crabtree added that if adopted by the CAS, the BPS would undergo a formal academic program review using official CAS guidelines. In addition, upon adopting the BPS the CAS would establish a governance structure for the BPS program. The Dean said that we could adopt one of two existing governance models, or we could invent something new. The two existing governance structures that could work for managing the BPS program within the CAS:

§ That like the Individually designed major (IDMJ) with an Associate Dean facilitator and faculty committee

§ That like our Interdisciplinary Programs, with a faculty Director and steering committee

Both of these models exist within our current Governance Document.

Prof. DeWitt noted that, while he is inclined to support CAS adoption of the BPS, he agreed with colleagues who voiced concern over needing more time to fully consider the BPS issue and materials.

Prof. Lopez asked how many students we would actually lose if the BPS were to close.

Dean Crabtree responded that we are not talking about a large number of students.

Associate Dean Perkus added that if we closed the BPS program, we would lose our BPS students to local competitors such as Sacred Heart.

Prof. Minors encouraged colleagues to maintain our sensitivities to the BPS issue, and he added that we must consider Prof. Pearson’s motion to postpone discussion.

Prof. Miners CALLED THE QUESTION. Associate Dean Im seconded.

Calling the question PASSES [unanimous vote]

Motion (Prof. Pearson’s motion to postpone a decision) PASSES [52 favor, 15 opposed, 0 abstained).

The Dean informally polled faculty to ask if we would like to consider both the BPS approval and the BPS governance structure at the next (March) meeting. A solid majority agreed that we should consider both the approval and governance issue at the March meeting.

Prof. Gil-Egui asked if it the committees who considered the BPS issue could provide a modified report to address the concern that the BPS would not be a back door for our traditional students who are pursuing B.A./B.S. degrees.

The Dean said that this concern over full-time students transferring to a BPS track is a procedural question that should be addressed in formal program review and revision if CAS adopts the program. Only then would we have the purview to propose such policies and enforce them. It would become our (CAS) business and not anyone else’s business.

III. Discussion of CAS governance structure supporting BPS

Given the motion to postpone discussion on the BPS issue, the Chair suggested that we move to item IV.

Prof. Bayne spoke strongly in favor of a BPS governance structure with a faculty director and steering committee.

Dean Crabtree agreed, and noted that if approved by the CAS, a faculty-led governance structure like that of other interdisciplinary programs would require no changes to the governance document (other than, perhaps, the addition of references to the BPS at various points). The Dean encouraged faculty to send her emails with questions or concerns about the proposed BPS program adoption and its governance structure at any time before the March meeting.

IV. Call for Nominations, Distinguished Teaching Award

The Chair announced that nominations are open for the CAS Distinguished Teaching Award. The CAS Faculty Chair and Secretary will distribute an email version of this call for nominations.

V. Calls for Nominations: Chair of College Faculty, CAS Planning Committee

A. Chair of the College Faculty, two-year term (Fall 2012)

The Chair announced that nominations are open for Chair of the College Faculty (starting Fall 2012). The CAS Faculty Chair and Secretary will distribute an email version of this call for nominations. The election of the new Chair are scheduled for the March CAS meeting.

B. CAS Planning Committee, two-year term (starting Fall 2012)  [Social Sciences]

The Chair opened the floor to nominations for a two-year term as a member of the CAS Planning Committee. The position is open to a Faculty member in the social sciences. Position begins Fall 2012). The CAS Faculty Chair and Secretary will distribute an email version of this call for nominations.

C. CAS Planning Committee, two-year term (starting Fall 2012) [At Large]

The Chair opened the floor to nominations for a two-year term as a member of the CAS Planning Committee. The position is open to a Faculty member in any division. Position begins Fall 2012.

With no further nominations, the Chair moved on to the next order of business. The CAS Faculty Chair and Secretary will distribute an email version of this call for nominations

VI. Call for Nominations for Merit Review Committee

2

The Chair opened the floor to nominations for the CAS Merit Review Committee. This two-year position begins immediately.

Prof. Im nominated Prof. Pagano. Prof. Pagano respectfully declined. With no further nominations, the Chair moved on to the next order of business.

VII. Brief remarks by the Dean

A. Budget and Faculty Search Update

1. Three searches were cancelled, four continuing, two completed in the fall. VP gave Dean assurance that cancelled searches will be given priority in FY’13.

§ Completed in the fall – PY and PO

§ Continuing – RS (done); MLL, EN, PH – offers out

§ Cancelled – MA, EC, HI

2. FY ’13 searches

Expects to prioritize departments whose searches were cancelled.

Expects to gain authorization to search in perhaps 6 departments (out of a possible 9-11 requests), with some lines remaining open for a year.

3. Other budget issues in FY ’12 and FY ‘13

a. While communication from the President and SVPAA has not always been broad, laying out vision and plan, we do need to read the writing on the wall and be more proactive.

b. We should forego “business-as-usual” modalities and seek ways of streamlining--learning to do excellent work with fewer resources or using resources more wisely.

c. In this budget climate, we can expect that there will be cuts, there will be need to use restricted funds that programs have been saving for “rainy days”, there will be slowed hiring, etc.

d. The Dean will continue to advocate for TT hires, including new lines using surplus from retiring faculty salaries, and will seek to use these funds strategically to enhance the undergraduate experience in high need areas and to support new revenue generating programs.

e. The Dean will continue to support faculty research and travel.

4. The Dean asked faculty to keep in mind that Fairfield is not immune to what’s happening in the larger higher education landscape (economy, affordability, public opinion about value and cost of a college education)

5. “The Faculty Memo” – The Dean expressed disappointment with the public airing (CT Post) of dirty laundry. She reminded faculty that airing grievances in public media can harm the institution and gave some examples of how it already has affected students and advancement officers working with donors. She urged folks to utilize the faculty and shared governance bodies for this kind of business.

B. Financial Aid and Admissions

1. Financial aid needs have skyrocketed. It’s an ever-increasing piece of the overall budget and annual tuition rate increases are no longer an option to meet growing costs.

a. 63% of students receive grants or loans from Fairfield University

b. 15% of this year’s freshman class is first-generation college student (down from 19% and 21% in recent years)

c. Our financial aid budget has increased by 50%+ since 2005.

2. We have the largest applicant pool in institutional history for next year. This is likely due, at least in a small way, to our holding the #2 spot in U.S. News rankings of Northeast regional universities. Alumni giving, the percentage of which is up, also has played a role in recent rankings by U.S. News.

3. In this Admissions environment, we need to communicate clearly what the “value” is of a Fairfield education based on assessment of student learning outcomes (as “outputs”), alumni accomplishments, etc., in addition to the quality of our faculty and programs (as inputs). The Dean has shared several ideas with Department Chairs, who will be bringing those to departments for discussion. One idea is to facilitate “office hours” for prospective students and parents on visits.

4. We in the Academic Division need to help our admissions and advancement efforts so, hopefully, we will see more student applications, better yields, and better fundraising. I also shared ideas about this with Chairs, and I hope we will produce materials will help the staff understand and advance the College. These things are essential for Fairfield’s future, and we’re all responsible for helping the University get there.

C. Announcements

1. Anticipating pre-tenure reviews. The Dean encouraged faculty to engage in peer review of teaching with junior colleagues; she suggested that colleagues who teach in the interdisciplinary programs’ cross-listed courses also participate to support the early career development of colleagues not in their home department.

2. Assessment update

a. Departments got their NEASC questions answered and uploaded for the 5-year review. Associate Deans Im and Perkus will follow up support the assessment process.

b. UCC seeks to ensure the Core Curriculum has appropriate assessment. The Dean asked faculty to please respond to requests from UCC to get revised core learning outcomes submitted for each core area (natural sciences and soc/beh sciences have already submitted, as requested).

3. University College update

a. Academic Council voted to recommend closure of UC. This will come to a vote at the March GF meeting.

b. Remaining UC staff are moving to Kelley Center this semester (to more fully integrate admissions and services for part-time students).

c. If the General Faculty vote to close UC passes, the Dean will work with chairs (e.g, at the annual summer retreat) to ensure a strong dean’s office role and departmental procedures for integration and support of part-time students.

d. BPS transition will begin immediately, one way or the other, after the CAS vote on adoption in March.

D. Good News

The Dean encouraged faculty to stay focused on the good works of our colleagues, who are dedicated teachers, accomplished scholars, and vital leaders at Fairfield. As well, she asked faculty to focus on the achievements of our students, and the joys of educating them.

1. Fairfield University was the recipient of a “Green Coast Award” in the university category. Presented by Connecticut-based Conscious Decisions Magazine, the Green Coast Awards honor and recognize individuals, businesses, services, and organizations throughout the state that are socially and environmentally responsible. David Downie, Director of the PoE, wrote the nomination and deserves kudos.

2. In related news, the Volunteer Center of Southwestern Fairfield County named Eugenia T. Zavras, Ph.D., assistant professor of the Practice of Biology, the “Outstanding Female Senior Volunteer” of 2011 for educating kids about the environment. She was singled out for the 25 years that she has volunteered at the Newfield Elementary School in Stamford, where she teaches an environmentally based program called “Riverwalk/River Study” that helps 4^th grade students learn about all aspects of fresh water and river ecosystems and humans’ impact the environment.  

3. Dr. Mike Serazio received the Dissertation of the Year award from the National Communication Association at their November meeting – this is an award given across all divisions and interest groups, and is an extraordinary and extremely rare honor. He has turned the project into a book that is being published by NYU press.

4. Dr. Yohuru Williams, Chair-elect of History, will be appearing on EBRU Today twice a month as a legal and political analyst. “Ebru Today" is a new morning news program telecast worldwide. It made its debut January 9, 2012 on The Ebru Television Network. It is seen on RCN cable in NYC, Philly, and select U.S. cities, Dish channel 782, and broadcast in many nations.

5. Dr. Mark Demers was featured speaking on Dynamical Systems on NPR’s “where we live” with John Dankosky.

6. Professor Lynne Porter has been invited to be an Affiliated Artist with the Bloomsburg Theatre Ensemble, which is celebrating its 35^th season and has a very distinguished place in theatre history and the cultivation of professional artists, designers, and technicians. She has served as a guest designer on productions over the years, and the invitation to become an Affiliated Artist, which is a great honor, formalizes the relationship.

7. Dr. Michael White received the Connecticut Book Award for Fiction for his latest novel, “Beautiful Assassin.” Three MFA faculty members won prestigious literary fellowships from the NEA (Nalini Jones, Porochista Khakpour, Suzanne Matson); will receive $25,000 to support their writing.

8. These are just a few of the good things that have happened recently, and certainly they are a subset of larger set of our many accomplishments.

E. Announcement – Next Associate Dean, Jim Simon

§ Jim will start this summer when Joan completes her term (Elizabeth Petrino is the new Chair of English).

§ Jim will work on dismissals & probations, facilitating program reviews, supporting the dean on logistics related to the rank & tenure external review process, enhancing enrollment management procedures, and other routine and strategic work for the College.

§ The Dean reminded faculty that Associate Deans are available for help with department matters.

VIII. Q&A

Prof. Miners brought attention to Prof. Li’s statement at last week’s General Faculty Meeting regarding the recent vandalism in Claver Hall. He said that we should all be outraged by the crime, and that we should discuss it in every one of our classes.

Prof. Miners MOVED and Prof. DeWitt seconded that the CAS faculty officially record our outrage over the Claver vandalism incident.

The motion passed unanimously.

Prof. DeWitt offered a few comments about the “the Memo” Dean Crabtree mentioned in her remarks. He said he was not sure who sent the memo to the CT Post, and that he was not convinced that the press attention is a big deal. He added that we are a special, caring faculty and administration, and that we must focus on real issues. He closed by saying that we are capable of addressing the issues we face, but that we must remain unified.

IX. ADJOURNMENT

Prof. Bowen MOVED to adjourn the meeting, and Prof. J. Johnson seconded the motion.

Meeting adjourned at 5:09 p.m.

Respectfully Submitted,

Scott M. Lacy

CAS Faculty Secretary

APPENDIX B: CALLS FOR NOMINATIONS

FACULTY CHAIR, COLLEGE OF ARTS & SCIENCES

POSITION Chair, College of Arts & Sciences  (two-year term)

ELIGIBILITY Full-time faculty

DATE Election scheduled for the March 23 CAS Meeting (Friday, Alumni House, 3:30-5:00)

Nominations can be forwarded to either Bob Epstein (REpstein@fairfield.edu) or Scott Lacy (slacy@fairfield.edu); nominations will also be taken from the floor. Faculty will elect the Chair at the March 23 CAS Meeting (term begins fall 2012).

CAS PLANNING COMMITTEE (2 POSITIONS)

POSITION College of Arts & Sciences Planning Committee (two-year term, beginning fall 2012)

ELIGIBILITY Two positions: one for Social & Behavioral Sciences, one in any division

DATE Election scheduled for the March 23 CAS Meeting (Friday, Alumni House, 3:30-5:00

Nominations can be forwarded to either Bob Epstein (REpstein@fairfield.edu) or Scott Lacy (slacy@fairfield.edu); nominations will also be taken from the floor. The CAS faculty will elect the new committee members at the March 23 CAS Meeting.

DISTINGUISHED TEACHING AWARD NOMINATIONS

Dear College Faculty: 

On behalf of the College of Arts & Sciences and Dean Crabtree, I am pleased to announce the opening of nominations for the ninth annual College of Arts and Sciences Distinguished Teaching Award.  Your committee for this award consists of me as chair, along with Kraig Steffen (Natural Sciences and Mathematics); Shannon Harding (Social and Behavioral Sciences; David McFadden (Humanities); and Dean Robbin Crabtree (serving ex officio).

We invite each Department and Program to nominate a colleague for this annual award; nonetheless nominations may come from any fulltime member of the CAS faculty.  Nominations should consist of a letter that explains, in two pages or less, the reasons for your nomination.

Rather than give you criteria, considering that each discipline looks at teaching through its own lens, we leave this question in your hands.  Our promise to you is that we will read all of your submissions carefully and make an informed decision as a committee of your peers representing the range of disciplines in the College, the heart and soul of this university. The members of the selection committee will not be eligible for the award.

The deadline for submission of letters is Monday April 2, by 4 p.m.  All letters must be submitted electronically as an MS Word e-mail attachment to Jean Daniele, Assistant to the Dean, College of Arts and Sciences (jdaniele@fairfield.edu).

We look forward to honoring the recipient of our Distinguished Teaching Award at the College of Arts and Sciences faculty meeting scheduled for Wednesday, April 25 at 4:30, in Alumni House.  We will present a $1,000 check and a framed citation, and there will be much cheering. 

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact any of the committee members.  We look forward to your nominations. 

Sincerely,

Bob Epstein, Chair of the Faculty, College of Arts & Sciences repstein@fairfield.edu)

Kraig Steffen (Natural Sciences and Mathematics, lsteffen@fairfield.edu)

Shannon Harding (Social and Behavioral Sciences, sharding@fairfield.edu)

David McFadden (Humanities, dmcfadden@fairfield.edu)

APPENDIX C: BPS INFORMATION PACKET

Please refer to the attached packet titled: BPS Information Packet. This attachment was distributed to all CAS faculty via email (along with the March CAS meeting agenda. The attachment is also available on the CAS website.

https://files.fairfield.edu/Departments/Faculty%20Bodies/CAS/website/

BACK TO CAS HOME