Minutes of the 1/25/06 Meeting of the College of Arts & Sciences
Proxies were held by:
Jocelyn Boryczka for Elizabeth Petrino
Sara Brill for David Gudelunas
Ed Dew for Kevin Cassidy
Jess Escobar for Marti LoMonaco
George Lang for Rick DeWitt
Vera Cherepinsky for Olivia Harriott
Susan Rakowitz for Irene Mulvey and Beth Boquet
Marice Rose for Laura Nash
Ron Salafia for John McCarthy
Call to order: Prof. Crabtree called the meeting to order at 4:07.
Announcements
Prof. Naser reminded faculty of his request for feedback on candidates for Phi Beta Kappa.
Prof. Bowen introduced Adelina Albrahimi, a visiting scholar from Albania, who specializes in the teaching of writing.
Prof. Crabtree turned the meeting over to Prof. Mulvey and other representatives from the Committee on Committees to run this election. Mulvey noted that only faculty who have completed at least a full year at Fairfield are eligible to vote. She explained that this was an at-large position for which faculty from the School of Engineering vote with faculty from the College. Engineering faculty had been invited to the election, but none were present, so no motion was needed to invite them in. Three nominees were on the distributed ballot, and there were no nominations from the floor. Later in the meeting, Prof. Buss was announced as the winner of the election.
Approval of the minutes of 11/30: Prof. Gardner moved to approve, seconded by Prof. Sapp. The minutes were approved unanimously with 11 abstentions.
MasterÕs Program in Communication for Corporate Cohorts
Crabtree asked Prof. Lane to chair this section of the meeting because she was presenting the proposal. Lane immediately asked for a motion to call the question, but failed in this subtle attempt to move things along.
Crabtree explained that the proposal is for a corporate program in Organizational Communication. The narrative component was distributed electronically with hard copies of the appendices available in several locations. She thanked Prof. Pagano who wrote and designed the first draft of the proposal, along with the rest of the Communication Department, and Profs. Mulvey, Rakowitz, D. Keenan, and Rosivach who provided help along the way. She proceeded to highlight aspects of the proposal of most relevance to the College.
She explained that the routing procedure was from the Department to the Deans to the Arts & Sciences Curriculum Committee to the faculty of the College to the Educational Planning Committee to the Academic Council. Along the way, the proposal accrues minutes, which is why the A&SCC minutes were attached.
The program would operate on a contracted basis with an off-campus entity (e.g., a corporation) that would put together a cohort of students. Classes would be conducted on an accelerated basis at the corporation. In such arrangements, the contracting company often pays employeesÕ tuitions and/or rewards employees for completing their degrees, so attrition rates tend to be very low. There has already been some market research to identify interested corporations. (The market research reports were appended to the full proposal.) University College would be charged with making the contractual agreements.
To be admitted, students will need a BachelorÕs degree along with a B or better in the first four courses of the curriculum and faculty recommendations from those initial courses. The four courses alone lead to a certificate, and include theory, research, writing, and ethics. The degree requires 24 credits beyond the 12 for the certificate, including a masterÕs thesis. Each thesis will be read by the studentÕs primary advisor, another faculty member who taught the student, and one other faculty member. The Communication Department will handle advising, selection, curriculum, etc. The department would look for select adjuncts with advanced degrees and specialized experience for selected courses.
The proposed program focuses on Organizational Communication, but it includes a broad examination of theory, research and applications. Classes will take advantage of the unique format by, for example, including projects relevant to studentsÕ work at the corporation. Noting that courses will emphasize active learning and critical reflection, Crabtree read the learning objectives from the proposal.
At this point, Lane suggested that it would be appropriate to put a motion on the floor. Crabtree, seconded by Prof. Escobar, moved to approve the MasterÕs Program in Communication for Corporate Cohorts.
Naser asked whether full time faculty would teach in the program as part of their regular load or as overload. Crabtree responded that faculty would have the option of teaching as load or overload, but their primary responsibilities would still be to the undergraduate program. Naser asked how much of an increase in adjunct teaching in the undergraduate program would result from the MasterÕs program. Crabtree said that revenues should generate full time positions, initially as 4/4 instructors with later conversion to tenure track positions. The 4/4 positions add to the undergraduate courses offered by full time faculty. Prof. Lang questioned the concept of 4/4 instructors. He noted that the Handbook allows for visiting faculty, but those positions are meant to be short term- one or two years. Crabtree agreed that she was referring to visiting positions and said that she was not envisioning those positions being in place for more than two years before being converted to tenure track. Dean Snyder said that we need to move away from a model of starting new programs and then hoping to attain resources. We need models that will allow us to maintain quality in our present programs while delivering similar quality in programs being created. He suggested that that focus on quality subsumes the adjunct question.
Prof. L. Miners asked what percent of faculty necessary to teach are already in place, in other words, whether the program could start now. Crabtree said that it could. Miners continued by asking where there were other programs like this and what their success rate was. Crabtree said that she wasnÕt sure, but Quinnipiac is doing something similar without a thesis. Miners suggested that it would be helpful to have more of that information. Crabtree said that these sorts of programs typically have low attrition and high success because of company support. Prof. Dennin asked roughly how many corporations have expressed an interest in this program. Crabtree responded that in the market research survey, about 20 employers and/or corporations had replied.
Miners then asked about a possible onsite program. He observed that the proposal mentioned such a possibility and wondered what, if any, relationship there would be between the two programs. Crabtree responded that there would be no relationship. She explained that there was some pressure for an on campus MA but there isnÕt yet a good financial model for such a program because of the mix of students it would involve. She said that the Department does have ideas, but will not pursue them without a viable financial model.
Prof. Dew announced that he intended to speak against the proposal during the debate, but wanted to clarify the concept of ŅcohortÓ. Would the program be open only to employees of the contracting corporation? He said that he objected to closing out other students. Crabtree said that it would depend on the contracting organization. There was some talk of developing a cohort at Universidad Centroamericana (UCA). Such a cohort would be put together by UCA, but might include people from the community. Dew reiterated his concern that no one in the Fairfield area would be able to enroll unless they worked, for example, at Sikorsky. Crabtree agreed that that was true and said that she understood the concern. Nonetheless, the cohort model requires a group that is equally committed and has equal incentives to move through the program together. Sapp noted that in principle if a company couldnÕt fill a cohort, it might be open to the possibility of including non-employees, but the market research suggests that companies wouldnÕt have trouble filling a cohort. Crabtree agreed that it is essential to keep the cohorts relatively small. Dew suggested that the program be off campus at a neutral location, like a hotel, to allow broader enrollment. He noted that off site sounds like it would save money, but going off site to multiple locations could get expensive. Crabtree said that there would be no more than three cohorts at a time. Prof. McFadden echoed DewÕs concerns. He said that he was torn because he wanted to trust his colleagues on the A&SCC, but mission and diversity are crucial issues for the College. He didnÕt feel that CrabtreeÕs responses to Dew had sufficiently addressed those issues; our programs should be open and accessible.
Bowen raised a question about precedent. She noted that under the authorization of the AVP, 11 students had already graduated from the program and that the proposal indicates that 5 thesis supervisions equal 1 course. She asked whether that had happened already. Crabtree said it had not; so far thesis supervisions had been done as overloads. There was a question of how this was handled in other MasterÕs programs at Fairfield and several voices answered that everything was done as overloads. Lane noted that this isnÕt the first cohort program at Fairfield; the now defunct executive MBA program was a cohort program.
Prof. OÕNeill returned to financial questions. He asked whether the AVPÕs promise of lines is in writing in case the AVP changes. Crabtree said that it was in writing in the proposal and that it was related to a broader push by Dean Snyder for a portion of all revenues generated by College programs to be returned to the College. In that way, programs generating revenues donÕt have to compete with other departments for new lines. Snyder added that he would not approve new proposals without well-documented financial plans. Prof. Cherepinsky asked whether the creation of tenure track lines from program-generated revenue would apply to existing MasterÕs programs as well. Lane responded that this proposal made no broader claims. Cherepinsky asked whether this proposal could at least serve as a precedent. Lane said that the AVP would need to answer that question. Snyder said that he is pursuing a model in which the current graduate enrollment levels serve as a baseline, and the College would attain revenues from enrollment increases over current levels.
Mulvey asked about page 5 of the proposal, which refers to the students who graduated from a program that was never approved by the faculty. The page includes talk of the AVPÕs approval and the Ņtemporary sanction of the Academic CouncilÓ. She said she was not aware of the Council taking any action on this program; the AVP alone authorized the graduations, so the reference to the Council should be removed. Crabtree wasnÕt sure of the source of that text, but had no objection to removing it.
At this point, there seemed to be no more questions and there was some confusion over whether that signaled the end of questions and the beginning of debate, or the end of debate. Lane pointed out that there was a motion on the floor. Prof. McGregor, seconded by Miners, moved to call the question, and the question was called.
Prof. Greenberg asked whether the proposal required a simple or 2/3 majority. Lane said that it required a simple majority. Lane asked whether the proposal would eventually go to the state. Crabtree responded that the state already had a Fairfield MasterÕs degree in Communication on file.
The proposal was approved by a vote of 49 in favor, 7 opposed, and 6 abstentions.
At this point, Crabtree thanked Lane and reclaimed the chair. She explained that the College would be asked to considered some proposed language changes in the Governance Document, specifically related to the Health Sciences Committee and the selection of chairs. The new language will be circulated in advance and will need a 2/3 majority of College faculty to be approved.
Snyder explained that since we last met, President von Arx had made the following appointments: the AVP, working with the Center for Academic Excellence, will be in charge of implementing the core curriculum component of the Strategic Plan; the AVP and the VP for Student Services will head up the implementation of the living and learning piece of the Plan; and the AVP and VP for Advancement will address implementation of the PlanÕs third goal. Snyder suggested that the College now await the next step from the AVP.
Lest we become bored or complacent while waiting, Snyder went on to discuss the universityÕs upcoming NEASC re-accreditation. The NEASC site visit will be in the Fall of 2007. The AVP has appointed Naser to coordinate the self-study. He noted that our assessment efforts will need to be more serious than usual, but that those efforts should involve efficient use of our time, and appropriate compensation. He explained that NEASC provides different options for the self-study, and that we will probably take the option of focusing in depth on three issues (namely the three goals of the Strategic Plan).
Lane asked Snyder whether there was any word from the AVP regarding the budget. Snyder said that they had had a brief conversation about merit, specifically his concerns about plans being comparably rigorous across departments. He said that the DeanÕs Council wanted to defer addressing that issue until we knew how many levels of merit would be available. Snyder reported that the AVP said there would probably be no more than one level, and that might be a struggle. At some point during these comments, Snyder inexplicably called for a toy boat, but none was forthcoming.
Snyder thanked all of the faculty who were working on hiring this year. Crabtree thanked Lane for his help with chairing this meeting, and Ms. Danielle for arranging for the snacks.
Lane, seconded by Steffen, moved to adjourn. In what may be a new College record, the meeting was adjourned at 5:02, less than an hour after it began.
Respectfully submitted,
Susan Rakowitz