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:

 

  1. Approval of the minutes of November 8th.  Motion to approve made by Prof. Rosivach, seconded by Prof. Garvey.  Motion passed unanimously.

 

  1. Old Business
    1. Sunset courses (materials previously distributed). Subcommittee report by Rosivach & Salafia was submitted for discussion.  Rosivach summarized the subcommittee recommendation that no change be made to the policy outlined in the Journal of Record; if a course has not been offered in five years, then it should be treated as a new course. Rosivach also stated that there is confusion about the relationship between University College (UC) and the College of Arts & Sciences (CAS) and that courses offered through UC are indistinguishable from day student courses.   He also stated that accredited schools, such as the School of Business, have control over courses offered through UC.  Davidson added that each department has the responsibility for interactions with UC.  Garvey stated that sunset courses in the English department were removed from the curriculum because they no longer fit into the curriculum.  However, the UC wanted to keep them on record, using language in the Journal of Record to argue that those courses are still offered through UC and thus shouldnÕt be removed.  Rosivach recommended that a committee be formed to look broadly at the relationship between UC and the CAS.

 

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