Dean's Council Meeting

College of Arts and Sciences

March 12, 2008

Present:  E. Boquet, R. DeWitt, M. Gogol, J. Gordon, F. Hannafey, S.J., M. Kubasik,

M. LoMonaco, J. McCarthy, D. McFadden, J. Orman, S. Peterson, S. Rakowitz,

R. Rodrigues, G. Sauer, J. Shanahan, J. Simon, M. Sourieau, J. Weiss, and D. Winn

Not Present: J. Leatherman, P. Lane, and L. O'Connor

The meeting convened at 3:30 p.m.

Introduction

Student Awards Ceremony—The Dean reminded the chairs that student submissions for the Arts and Sciences Award Ceremony are due by Monday, March 17, and the decisions for the department and program award recipients should be submitted on-line by Friday, April 7.

Update on Faculty Hires—The College was successful in recruiting new hires for the upcoming academic year 2008-2009. Out of fourteen open faculty lines, the College secured twelve positions, in addition to one pending in Mathematics, and one failed search in Politics. There were 2 African Americans, 3 Hispanic, and 2 International hires. The positions for Writing Program Administrator, which is housed in the English Department, and Director of the Program on the Environment, which is split between Environmental Studies and Politics, are senior level positions. The Dean was pleased with the outcome of these hires.

The Dean informed the chairs that next year will be lean in terms of approved searches due to the effects of the current hires, few retirements, and economic conditions beyond the University. Dr. John Orman requested approval for continued effort to pursue the Politics search for next year. The Dean will consult with the incoming Dean, Dr. Robbin Crabtree, to recommend that this position will be reserved for the Politics Department in 2008-2009.

Merit—The Dean mentioned that salary increases will not be equivalent to a cost of living raise; therefore, he suggested that department chairs base their Merit plans on levels of Sustained and A0. Dr. Susan Rakowitz asked if administration insists on carving additional Merit out of the available funding, even if increases were below cost of living, would faculty within the College be protected by A0. The Dean responded that the Board of Trustees determines the outcome of the allocation for annual increases, but he is confident that the College will be working with Sustained and A0. He informed the chairs that guidelines will be issued to him relative to this year's process, and as soon as he receives them, he will distribute them for implementation.

Dr. David Winn asked the Dean what the ratio would be between Sustained and A0. The Dean estimated an approximate 2/3 Sustained and 1/3 A0, but there is no official confirmation.

Dr. John McCarthy questioned the outcome if all faculty within the department reached the level of A0. Will the chairs be responsible to randomly choose amongst these faculty to compensate a smaller portion at the A0 level? The Dean mentioned that he would engage in a conversation with the chairs if this situation occurs. Dr. Shanahan stated that the Communication Department started and completed Merit evaluations approximately a month ago, and they utilized all levels of Merit from Sustained to A3. These calculations were recorded to capture the three year moving window utilized by the College to determine additional Merit. Anything above the A0 level will be noted for future use, beyond this academic year.

Dr. David McFadden asked that there be uniformity across the College when submitting this year's Merit calculations. If departments base their reviews by using all levels of Merit, their recommendation to the Dean should only display assessment based on Sustained and A0. Any evaluation based on all levels of Merit—Sustained through A3 could be stored by the department for future reference when evaluating the three year window. He did not see the necessity to submit this information to the Dean. The concern here is that all departments should be consistent in what they provide to the Dean. The Dean mentioned that if department calculations included all levels, they could submit a copy to the Dean to be filed for future reference, but they should also submit evaluations based only on Sustained and A0.

To clarify the process the Dean official asked all department chairs to submit Merit plans based on Sustained and A0. A deadline date will be announced once the Board of Trustees determines this year's standards. The soonest submission will be approximately mid-April.

Dr. Marti LoMonaco expressed her disappointment about this year's Merit process. Previous communication indicated that use of the Merit plans would not be necessary. LoMonaco instructed the Visual and Performance Arts faculty to submit their annual reports, as had been the procedure prior to the establishment of departmental Merit plans. The Dean reiterated that he has not received any official word relative to Merit, but he recommended that the process begin prior to receiving the official recommendations from the Board of Trustees.

Dr. Rose Rodrigues asked how the department chairs are evaluated. The Dean mentioned that most departments assigned a committee to evaluate their chair, while others have the Dean contributing in their evaluation process. The Dean asked the chairs to let him know if their plans require his contribution to their evaluation.

The Dean will meet with each chair to discuss their final assessment for faculty within their department. It is not necessary to submit backup materials, unless further documentation is requested. A summary sheet is sufficient to determine final assessment, including a brief discussion backing up the decisions made.

Dr. Rick DeWitt stated that the majority of faculty in the college are likely to meet the criteria for A0, so he asked if department chairs could submit a hard copy of their decisions, and plan for a future meeting only if needed. The Dean commented that because he meets with the Academic Vice President to discuss all Merit outcomes, it may be best to continue with the traditional meeting procedures. He will think about this request and get back to the chairs with a decision.

Rakowitz mentioned that all department plans included a threshold to meet Sustained and A0, and these plans were all approved. If it is determined that faculty crossed the bar, within the criteria of their approved plans, in principle there should be no deviation from the decision of the department.

Electronic Wait List—The Academic Support Group is in the process of changing the University's registration system. Dr. Elizabeth Boquet explained the new process for an electronic wait list, which is to be implemented for registration this spring. Once students meet with their advisors, they should be informed to register for all of their courses, even if some of their course selections are listed as full. They should select more courses to assure they will have enough credits for the semester, in case their wait listed course does not become available. If a spot opens up for a closed course, the student will receive an e-mail message on their StagWeb account offering them an opportunity to register. Students will be given a time frame to accept the opened course; and if the student does not contact the Registrar's Office within the allotted time, the next student on the wait list will be given the opportunity. This system is a good way to collect data on course request patterns and to assure fairness amongst the students.

Ms. Peterson asked if there is a way to determine whether a course is popular because of the time it is offered or if it is popular because of the actual course. Dr. Gogol mentioned that the Academic Support discussed evaluating these types of course related patterns.

Dr. Weiss pointed out that a student accepted into a wait listed course may be faced with a time conflict relative to the remainder of their schedule. Boquet stated the student would have to reevaluate their schedule to determine which courses best suit their curricular goals. There will be some challenges, but ideally what it will eliminate is students coming to faculty asking for permission to be written into their course.

Dr. Matthew Kubasik questioned the necessity behind instituting a registration wait list, especially if it is to collect data to determine popular course choices. This information can still be gathered without executing this system. He is concerned that putting this into place would offer students a hope that they will get into a class, in fact, they may not get into. Boquet assured the chairs that the primary reason behind this system is not for data collection. The reasoning behind instituting a wait list is to get around a lot of the students' finessing of schedules as they attempt to manage course closeouts. There are situations where students with a better lottery number registers for seven courses, so they can give two of their courses to a friend who has a lower number and are more apt to be closed out of a particular course they are interested in. Because students are cleverly manipulating the system, the Academic Support Group wanted to address the lack of transparency and give all students a sense of fairness. After the initial add/drop period, students should not be allowed to show up at the Registrar's Office to see if a course opened up. The electronic wait list is designed to insure the integrity of the lottery numbers and address the issue of lack of transparency and fairness for our students.

Dr. Rodrigues asked if a professor writes a student into their course would it affect the wait list. Boquet stated that she was not sure how this would work; writing a student into a course may be considered an overload and should not take away from the students wait listed.

Boquet mentioned that there will have to be some mechanism to work with transfer students, so they could be worked into a schedule for their first semester at Fairfield.

Passaround—On behalf of Dr. Janie Leatherman, Gogol passed around information pertaining to the conference, Transforming the World and Being Transformed. Fairfield University will host this conference June 18-21, 2009. Leatherman will conduct a meeting on Monday, March 17, in CNS 200 at 12:00 p.m., to discuss ideas relative to presentations, talks, papers etc… Conference proposals should be one page in length and should be submitted electronically by March 30, 2008 to justiceconference@loyola.edu.

Term Limits for Program Directors—Gogol discussed the progress of the ad hoc committee that was formed to discuss term limits for the Interdisciplinary Programs—Drs. Mary Ann Carolan, Miriam Gogol, David McFadden, and Renee White agreed on term limits for program directors. Once the wording of this statement is finalized by the committee, it will be shared with the Dean's Council as a first step. McFadden explained that the statement will cite a three-year term renewable for preferably one additional term. Dr. Rick DeWitt mentioned that any change in the Governance Document will need to be approved at College Faculty level.

Approval of Minutes

Dr. John Orman moved to approve the January 17, 2008 Dean's Council minutes. All were in favor of the approval.

Individually Designed Majors

Boquet distributed information associated with the Individually Designed Majors—application and revised assessment guidelines. Boquet facilitates the approval and processing of the Individually Designed Majors, as she works with a committee consisting of Drs. Jim Biardi,

Lisa Newton, and Joan Weiss. She expressed the importance of both faculty and students awareness of this opportunity. There are a number of departments that are involved with interdisciplinary programs where students may be interested in a self designed major.

Boquet explained that the committee worked on a program review for the Arts and Sciences Curriculum Committee. The following was discussed and the outcomes will be shared with the ASCC on Tuesday, March 18.

• Reviewed the uses of the major
• Tightened up the exit process for the major
• Implement on-line representation—The Individually Designed major is not presently listed as a major on our Web site. On-line presentation will offer awareness to our present and perspective students.
• Application and guidelines will be listed.
• Students interested in an Individually Designed major works closely with a faculty advisor.
• The designed major should be outside of our major offerings but should fall within faculty expertise.
• Students need to process their applications by the end of their sophomore year. . It is important to have the time to develop within the chosen major; therefore, this should be a closely advised process that is clearly developmental offering capstone experience and experiential opportunities, such as Study Abroad and/or internships.
• Because there is a range of understanding as to what student portfolios should consist of, the committee outlined the following Suggestions for Portfolio and Culminating Assessment

To include in the portfolio:

Archival Materials from Required Courses (syllabi and assignments, web pages and posters developed, short- and long-writing assignments, materials from projects)

Initial Reflective Writing (to prepare the application):

Describe the most significant experiences you've had, in or out of school, that have led you to this choice of major.

At the start of each semester: What do you most look forward to learning this semester? What about your prior learning experiences prepares you for the courses in which you're currently enrolled? What is happening outside the classroom that will enrich your own and your peers' experiences in class?

At the end of each semester: What key concepts or ideas did you encounter that seem most important to you? What transferable skills (non-course specific) have you been developing this semester (e.g., genres of writing, intercultural awareness, public speaking, teamwork)? What projects/achievements are you proudest of? Where did you efforts fall short?

Plan-of-Action (at the end of each year): List and briefly describe 3 short-term goals and one long-term goal (e.g., scholarship opportunities, awards, conferences). What are you doing right now to help you to achieve these goals? What are you not yet doing that you could be doing?

Assessment: While the portfolio provides an opportunity for you to reflect on and guide your learning over the course of your major experience, the assessment is designed to offer evidence to an external audience (the Individually Designed Major Review Committee) of the fulfillment of the promise implicit in your initial application. Because the committee may not review your entire portfolio, the assessment should offer a review and analysis of the highlights of the portfolio. The assessment should be brief (3-5 double-spaced pages), though supporting documentation may be provided.

These suggestions outline not only the materials students will gather in their portfolio, but also some potential props to help them reflect on their experiences or to think forward with the choices they make relative to the major.

Orman asked how many students declared an individually designed major and some titles of these majors. Boquet mentioned that, so far, there are approximately 30 students who graduated with an Individually Designed Major. There has been between four to six students per year. Many of these majors have been within the interdisciplinary programs, such as Asian Studies, Russian and East European Studies, Classical Studies, Chinese, Environmental Studies, Greek Art, Italian Studies, Russian Studies, Social Justice in Latin America & the Caribbean, and Sustainable Development in Latin America.

Winn asked if students can double count courses using them towards their minor and then towards their individually designed major. Boquet explained that students can count core courses towards this major. The committee is strict about what a student needs to do to be approved for their designed major. Students are required to map out a clear rationale of what courses they plan to engage in as they pursue this major.

Boquet offered her assistance to both faculty and students who may need assistance with throughout the process of applying and or working through an Individually Designed major.

The meeting was adjourned at 4:30.