ASCC Meeting: Tuesday December 13, 2005
Convened at 3:35 PM
Present: Professors Bayne, Brill, Davidson, Dew,
Escobar (Chair), Garvey, Harriott, Rosivach, Salafia, Simon & Dean Snyder
Visitors: Crabtree, Chair, Communication Dept.
Agenda:
Motion to form a subcommittee
to address the relationship between University College and the College of Arts
& Sciences was made by E. Dew; seconded by Garvey. The motion passed unanimously.
Subcommittee formed: Dew, Salafia, Rosivach, Simon
3.
New Business
a.
Master of Arts in Communication Corporate Cohort
Program Proposal (materials previously distributed).
Robbin Crabtree,
Chair, Communication Department, provided an overview of the history of the
certificate cohort program. She
stated that it began as a non-degree certificate program, consisting of five
courses and directed by Jim Keenan with involvement of Corporate Relations, UC
& in collaboration with Cendant Mobility. She further stated that there was an interest by Cendant
Mobility, after the students completed the certificate, and by Jim Keenan (formerly
of Grad Comm) to follow the certificate with a masterÕs degree program in
communication. This was approved by the Academic Vice President (AVP) in
2003. Crabtree stated that the AVP
also confirmed that State of Connecticut authorization for a MasterÕs Degree
program in communication at Fairfield University was still active. She stated that there is a
currently a cohort in the program from Cendant (2nd group; the 1st
cohort graduated last May, with approval of the President), and a cohort at
Sikorsky.
Crabtree noted
that all of this progress occurred while the program approval process was
bogged down in committee last year. Members of the University College Committee
received conflicting advice about the procedures to follow. EPC did a Òprogram
reviewÓ and sent the program to Academic Council, but the council did not consider
it.
Crabtree discussed
routing procedures and indicated that the correct procedures are now being
followed, as indicated in the program proposal.
Snyder asked if AC
heard the proposal. Crabtree
responded no, and that she was given the recommendation that AC sees this as a
new program, and it needs to be approved as such. The executive committee of AC
advised Crabtree not to have the program review from last year go to AC, but to
begin a new process.
Dew asked about
the fate of students currently in the program. Crabtree responded that students would continue through with
their Masters regardless of the decision of the program, based on approval by
the AVP and the President to honor the UniversityÕs commitment to these
students.
Crabtree
stated that the graduate communication program exists through the State and
that the University can still confer MasterÕs degrees in Communication. While the Grad School of communication
had closed, the degree program hadnÕt been closed.
Rosivach stated
that the ASCC should be limited to academic/curricular issues as they affect
the CAS and that resource issues are the responsibility of the Educational
Planning committee. Governance and
procedural issues are AC issues.
Simon asked if
Crabtree felt that the curriculum taken by grandfathered students is as
rigorous as the current curriculum.
Crabtree responded yes.
Simon also
inquired about the potential impact of the program. He asked if faculty who teach undergrads would also be
teaching graduate students.
Simon inquired about net gain in terms of faculty available to
undergrads and areas of expertise.
Crabtree responded that no one would be teaching more than 4 classes per
year in the grad program. Most faculty
will have an opportunity to teach 1/6 to 1/3 of their load in the graduate
program, with Prof. Mike Pagano and Keenan teaching more like ½ due to
their primary interests in organizational communication. Simon asked if undergraduates would be
able to take grad courses. Crabtree responded no. She said it is a cohort-based program; courses will be
offered at an offsite contract-based cohort site.
Davidson inquired
about the draw down on undergraduate resources. Crabtree rephrased the question to: What does the college get out of it? She said that half the classes taught
by the new faculty who are funded by program revenues are taught on campus and
for undergrads. This means our
undergrads get more sections of required courses, more access to topics related
to new faculty expertise, and access to the new facultyÕs additional expertise
in non-academic arenas (e.g., Pagano, with a Ph.D. in Comm, also has
marketing/CEO and hospital-based experience.). Also, Crabtree noted that if
Communication can generate revenues to hire new faculty, the other departments
of the College do not have to compete with Communication for new lines. She
said that prior to her arrival, the Communication department was
under-resourced, but now the department fully participates in the core
curriculum, honors program, womenÕs studies and other programs, and so there is
plenty of ÒflexÓ in the undergraduate program to allow for graduate teaching
without taxing the undergrads.
Crabtree stated
that Quinnipiac is interested in this program, and Fairfield University should
maintain a foothold in this market niche.
Snyder stated that
the CAS puts forth a general policy about revenue generating programs. He said that graduate programs can
derive extra revenue and that this is not an issue of resources but an issue of
quality. He said that when
revenues come in, there has to be enough to pay for the program; revenue must
pay for the cohort piece, the college, and incentive to the college and itÕs
faculty.
Crabtree stated
that Fairfield University recruits/selects for about 20% of the college
students in the country. She said
that faculty members generally feel it is better to have a graduate program,
which enhances prestige of the department within the field and in the
recruitment of faculty. She said
that communication is the most popular major and the numbers havenÕt gone down
despite the start of new majors (such as radio and film).
Brill asked if
Crabtree felt that the program would increase prestige and research in
communication. Crabtree responded
yes, that it will increase research opportunities through the relationships
with corporations. She said the
program would also lead to granting opportunities particularly in health
communication. Brill inquired
about the requirement of a thesis and ethics course and the role in the
university mission.
Crabtree stated
that it brings the mission of the University and the hope is that the companies
will develop relationships with the University. This could lead to future
development opportunities, with the program alumni and also with the
corporations.
Dew expressed
concern about the program being under a different roof, specifically a cohort
working at another institution with a different agenda and a course that is
closed to outsiders. Dew also
asked how long could a cohort run before it is exhausted. Dew also expressed concern about the
organization controlling the program.
Crabtree responded
that site locations would be moved.
She stated that market research conducted indicated that there is a
strong interest in an on campus MA communication program and that the on-site
MA proposal is already work in progress.
Crabtree said that the communication dept. and faculty would be in
control of the curriculum and that an on-campus Masters program is something we
should have and hopefully will be in place and coexist with the Corp. Cohort Program.
Rosivach stated
that the program has the potential for setting precedent with regard to
revenue-generating streams. He
expressed concern about putting additional adjunct faculty into the
undergraduate curriculum. He said
that a lecturer type of adjunct with expertise in an area is desirable;
however, bringing in adjuncts to cover a course is undesirable. Crabtree noted that no more adjunct
faculty are being added to teach undergrad sections. The full-time faculty
teach all CO courses in the core, and there are very few, but highly-qualified
and long-term, adjuncts teaching undergrad CO courses. Rosivach also asked if a
7-wk course is normal. Crabtree
responded yes, but that the courses are intensive. Rosivach asked about the course review procedure and stated
that the course approval process should be the same as with other programs run
in the CAS (from dept. ˆ ASCC).
Crabtree stated that there should be multiple points of faculty
oversight.
Salafia asked if
the program would facilitate the development of an on-campus program and if the
proposal is based on the students who currently are seeking a MasterÕs degree.
Crabtree responded
that faculty feel a meaningful connection with the students and that given the
changing demographics, that this program is right for Fairfield.
Garvey
asked about teaching credit for mentoring students.
Crabtree responded
that faculty would advise five thesis students, which corresponds to one
course. She said the additional
readers on a thesis would get paid for an independent study, but that the issue
is being formalized with the two College deans.
Dew
asked about the matriculation of cohort students on campus.
Crabtree said that
some students would not be able to matriculate and some would. She said that they would have to look
at the market research to determine viability and enrollment numbers.
Dew asked about
access to resources. Crabtree said
that students have access to all resources at Fairfield and that there is
substantial on-line communication.
Dew asked if other
students would be able to go through the program. Crabtree responded that there is potential for UCA (Universidad
Centroamericana in Managua) as a site through intensive and hybrid courses. She
was involved in a similar program at her previous institution. The UCA faculty
have BAÕs but little opportunity to get MAÕs. They are very interested in this
possibility.
Rosivach noted
that under the proposal, the Dean
of UC would read the names of the graduates. Both Snyder & Crabtree stated that the UC has been
terrific and visionary in the preparation of the program, and that this is a
symbolic recognition of the collaboration.
A motion to
approve/endorse the program was made by Rosivach; seconded by Salafia.
The
motion passed: 8 approval, 1
opposition
b.
Program in Irish Studies: five-year review (previously distributed materials &
guidelines for review of program).
Rosivach provided
guidelines for review of programs generated by the UCC and EPC. He stated that AC passed the guidelines
in April 2005.
Rosivach stated
that Jim Mullen, Director of the Program, should be present to discuss the
review. Rosivach moved to table
the review and invite Jim to the March meeting; Dew seconded.
Garvey and Dew
suggested that the ASCC compile a list of questions (via e-mail) to be
addressed at the March meeting.
The motion
passed unanimously.
Simon moved to adjourn; seconded by
Dew
Meeting adjourned at 5:00 PM
Items Pending
Moving
to the 4/4 teaching load (tabled)
Teaching credit
for mentoring students through independent study or research (subcommittee
report)
Submitted
by Olivia Harriott