Minutes of the meeting of the Arts and Sciences Curriculum Committee

October 11, 2005 Convened at 3:35 p.m.

Present: Professors Bayne, Brill, Davidson, Dew, Escobar (Chair), Garvey, Harriott, Salafia, and Dean Snyder

Agenda:

1. Appointment of the committee secretary for the day.

2. Approval of the minutes. Salafia moved to approve, Garvey seconded. Minutes approved: 7

yeas, one abstention

3. Announcements:

The Hurricane Katrina teach-in by Miners motivated him to consider it as a course and sent an enquiry to the committee. Brill asked about the format, and Salafia explained how similar courses have happened in the past in the Psychology dept.

Dew, Garvey and Escobar spoke about concern for departmental home rather than just a floating course.

Harriott wondered if the course would be broadened to include other themes beyond Katrina and indicated that we could expect similar problems in the future with other interdisciplinary courses. Brill also affirmed that core credit issues should be considered. Escobar asked if there was a special topics seminar for Economics, but there didn’t seem to be. Snyder indicated that he had no problem with the idea of such a course, but perhaps as a thesis course; it was uncertain if Miners meant it to be a core class.

Salafia and others observed, given the tight deadlines, that it would not be possible to offer such a course the spring, and that Professor Miners should be informed that the proposal’s reception in the committee was quite positive, but perhaps the formal obstacles and tight timeframe precluded its offering in the spring.

The committee agreed that such a course would need a departmental home, and that Professor Miners would be encouraged to provide a formal proposal through the normal channels of departmental approval, etc.

On other business, Escobar indicated that he received questions from the registrar about the exact way the courses were approved, enquiries about CAPP standards, etc. The registrar’s requirements seem to be evolving, but the committee had no guidelines on how to answer such questions. Snyder suggested that the registrar provide the curriculum committee and the College departments with guidelines so that their needs could be met.

Departmental responses to A&SCC enquiries on courses:

BI 364 Freshwater Ecology was clarified on how it fits in the Biology Department’s rotation.

CO 246 Family Communication struck the proposed prerequisite of the Womens Studies minor.

4. Old Business:

- Program in Irish Studies: Director James Mullin agreed to have the results of his review for the December meeting of the A&SCC.

- Teaching credit for mentoring students:

Snyder discussed the recommendations from the Teaching Equity Committee—the two difficult questions were about independent studies and research students. How do we count these courses? How many students constitute the equivalent of a regular course—should they be counted in aggregate over time or by the total for each semester? Parity for compensation for the course work is desirable, but two issues were important: First: the financial aspects, requiring more adjuncts, reversing the current direction of the College. Second: the expectations for the faculty member with respect to independent studies, supervised research or internships? We need well-defined expectations on the faculty member and on the student, so that it is not wholly independent.

Escobar: A&SCC minutes of April 12th already reflect a discussion received from the Teaching Equity Committee about this with specific recommendations, but the committee was requesting input from the dean. Snyder indicated he intended to send out a modified version of the recommendation. It’s already been distributed to chairs and directors, but not entirely considered in the Dean’s Council.

Harriott observed that there were big differences between independent study and research in biology, and Garvey indicated the high number of independent studies in English, with many adjuncts doing independent studies.

Salafia: it would seem that the committee should receive some feedback from the departments, what they would like to give credit for, and for them to justify their recommendations. Departments should also establish standards for faculty-student collaboration.

Garvey observed that the Faculty Equity Committee hasn’t solicited information from departments about these issues, since it was towards the bottom of a difficult agenda.

Davidson suggested that a subcommittee could be formed to provide evidence. He moved, and Salafia seconded, the formation of a subcommittee to bring back to the A&SCC the formation and results of a questionnaire distributed to departments. The motion was unanimously approved. The subcommittee will consist of the Dean, Garvey, Harriott, and the Chair will ask for the contribution of Professor Lane, who knows the data well. The subcommittee will move to obtain data for the November meeting of the A&SCC.

- Moving to a 4/4 student load: Davidson moved to table; Brill seconded. Unanimously approved.

5: New Business:

- The double counting of courses, materials previously distributed:

Salafia mentioned that two cases of students came to the UCC about individual majors or minors, in which the question of double-counting was problematic, especially in reference to the interdisciplinary majors. Neuroscience was a classic example because of it being virtually both biology and psychology. With a smattering of additional courses, students could create another major, a good idea coming back and being used against the college.

Davidson observed that there were two arguments against double counting. The moral argument was against students receiving credit for little work, but that argument did not take our large core into account. The intellectual argument was that students should get better grounding in the disciplines, but the departments set the agendas for the satisfaction of requirements, and that this could be handled at a departmental level.

Garvey and Davidson observed that, if double counting is not allowed, it would mandate the increase of the core, since U.S. and World Diversity will become separate requirements, and that the interdisciplinary area programs will be decimated. Such a change would be a university-wide question, not for the College alone.

Salafia indicated that graduate programs care little about the declared major, but look at the cluster of courses and determine the nature of the education. It is unreasonable and embarrassing to allow students to achieve three majors for limited work.

Snyder said that the College’s concern is about the degradation of degrees by dilution. Also, some of the students will amass minors indiscriminately to get better enrollment status. Moreover, we allow our students to carry this myth that many majors mean something, but they do not consider the value of the majors and minors. Relative to the rest of the academic world, Fairfield University is out of step in allowing multiple counting.

Dew wanted to distinguish between the problem with minors and the problem of majors, and wished we knew how many students were actually affected.

Dew and Brill wondered if deeper penetration into each major was inhibited by allowing multiple majors?

Salafia affirmed that, finally, this comes down to an advisement issue.

Garvey thought that the line might be drawn at triple counting.

Snyder indicated that the College had at least two program units whose zeal is reflected in the number of minors, causes the dilution of the minor as well.

Brill thought that there were issues of both policy and advisement, which seem like two different ways of approaching the issue. Policy implicates infrastructure issues, and our students seem to think it’s a good idea to go out in the world with multiple minors.

Salafia indicated that the issue came up in the context of two students with independently designed majors, with heated discussions with advisors. If we feel that it is not likely to arise again, then maybe we should let it lie.

Escobar voiced the committee’s sense is that there seems to be no need to establish policy at this point, but that the discussion was valuable to clarify the points.

Salafia: moved to adjourn; Dew second. The committee was adjourned at 5:00 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

Ronald Davidson

Recording secretary