ASCC_2012-10-16

The Chair introduced Prof. Rose, who presented the proposal to establish a concentration in Visual Arts Administration.

Key points of Prof. Rose’s presentation:
•    The proposed concentration in Visual Arts Administration would challenge students to explore, “how art works in society today, and how to engage in that.”
•    Because of the interdisciplinary nature of the proposed concentration, the proposers reached out to department chairs and strategic faculty in areas including, but not limited to Business Ethics, Grant Writing, and Industrial Psychology; Rose reported enthusiastic responses from those Chairs and colleagues.
•    Visual Arts Administration is a strategic choice over “Museum Studies” (a common model in the US) because it will include for-profit and non-profit sectors, ideal for the greater NYC region.

Prof. Fernandez requested additional information about the internship component of the proposed concentration.

Prof. Rose explained that Fairfield’s alumni network and proximity to New York City provide a wide variety of internship opportunities with organizations such as the Fairfield Arts Council and the UBS Corporate Art Collection.

Assoc. Dean Im questioned whether the Grant Writing class in International Studies would be appropriate for the Visual Arts Administration concentration. He and Prof. Johnson noted that the IS Grant Writing class is now organized around the Fulbright application. Prof. Johnson strongly encouraged the proposers review and reconsider the Grant Writing class component of the concentration.

Prof. Rose reported that prior to submitting the proposal, she asked Prof. Leatherman (instructor of the Grant Writing Class) if her course would be appropriate for the Visual Arts Administration concentration, to which Leatherman responded positively.

Professors Xie and Nantz, along with Assoc. Dean Im inquired about several elective courses, which they felt were essential and should be required.

Prof. Rose said that these courses (e.g. grant writing and accounting) would be appropriate for only a handful of students in the Visual Arts Administration program. She said advising will play a crucial role in helping students balance their concentration courses toward professional interests. Rose explained that the proposers opted for flexibility and electives because their majors often declare later in their Fairfield experience, and that some courses may not be offered often enough.

Prof. Xie asked if the proposers were concerned that it would be difficult for their students to find spaces in courses like management.

Prof. Rose said that the numbers of students seeking such a class would be small.

Prof. Johnson asked about the total number of students in the existing program, and how many of those students would want to do the proposed concentration.

Prof. Rose said there are currently 25 students in the program, and that many were double majors with diverse interests including law and biology.

Assoc. Dean Im asked if the proposers were concerned with offering as BA concentration that typically tends to be taught as post-graduate programs. He asked if our students would be competitive on the job market (with B.A. concentration rather than post-graduate work).

Prof. Rose explained that Fairfield alumni have been a tremendous resource for helped our graduates find employment, and that a number of student internships transitioned into jobs following graduation. Rose added that graduates seeking high-level positions might seek the concentration as a pathway to graduate work and professional experience that would bolster their potential.

With no more questions from committee members, the Chair thanked Prof. Rose for attending.

Prof. Johnson MOVED to approve the proposal. Prof. Fernandez SECONDED the motion.

The Chair opened the floor for discussion.

Prof. Johnson spoke in favor of the motion because the proposed concentration could make some of our Art History majors more competitive and prepared for the Visual Arts Administration careers.

Prof. Ruffini asked fellow committee members if the concentration actually appears on the diploma. Prof. Johnson said that the concentration would be on the student’s transcript not the degree (a model used for English major concentrations).

Motion PASSED (9-0-0)

A.    HIXXX Godless: Atheism and Skeptical Thought in the West

Prof. Fernandez MOVED to approve the proposal. Prof. Johnson SECONDED the motion.

The Chair asked for comments from the committee.

Prof. Nantz asked about the proposed course level, 200 versus 300 (pre-requisite or not). Prof. Peduti noted that the proposal indicates that the proposer anticipates using the 300 level, according to department minutes.

Dean Im advised the proposer to clarify ambiguity about the course level. He also suggested that the proposers discuss the course level issue with Catholic Studies.

Prof. Peduti noted that the proposed course description is slightly over the word limit for the course catalogue.

The Chair called for a vote to approve, with the following caveats:
•    Proposers resolve ambiguity and discuss implications of selection the 300 versus 200 course level.
•    Proposers revise the course description to 100 or fewer words.

Motion PASSED (9-0-0).

B. PH265/AY199 (Philosophy and Economic Anthropology)

The Chair explained that the committee would consider the PH265 and AY199 proposals together, because it is the same course (co-taught).

Prof. Peduti MOVED to approve the proposal. Prof. Johnson SECONDED the motion.

The Chair opened the floor for discussion.

Prof. Ruffini asked about the rationale for the numbering of the proposed course.

Prof. Lacy explained that Anthropology has a single required course at the 10-level. Then all other courses, except AY200: Anthropological Research Methods, are 100-level courses.

Prof. Johnson noted that there is only one 100-level Philosophy course, due to recent curricular changes. All other Philosophy courses are either 200- or 300-level.

    The Chair inquired about staffing and teaching loads of the proposed team-taught course.

Assoc. Dean Im explained that the course would be open for 40 students, who choose to earn core credit for either social science or philosophy.

The Chair said that he hoped the instructors would consider pulling the course if registration levels were lower than 40 (20 students load for each co-teacher).

With no further discussion the Chair called for a vote.

Motion PASSED (9-0-0).

C. WGS101: Intro to Women, Gender and Sexuality Studies

Prof. Garvey MOVED to approve the proposal. Prof. Nantz SECONDED the motion.

The Chair opened the floor for discussion.

Prof. Nantz asked about the sustainability of staffing because the proposal included minutes, in which a colleague expressed uncertainty about whether the proposed course could be taught as an overload.

Assoc. Dean Im reported that the Dean has discussed staffing and overload issues with the Director of the program, and has determined that staffing is feasible.

Prof. Nantz reiterated a concern about the sustainability of staffing, because the arrangement is dependent upon the support and agreement of the current and future Deans

Prof. Garvey explained that the Program Director serves a two-year term, and is slated to teach this course. However, not all Program faculty are prepared to teach the proposed course because of the comprehensive nature of the course curriculum. Garvey added that it was her understanding that those who are able and prepared to teach the course will teach the course as part of their normal class cycle. Prof. Garvey did not have details on the overload issue.

Prof. Johnson asked who bedsides the current chair was prepared to teach the proposed capstone.

Prof. Garvey responded that Professors Garvey, Gudelunas, Kohli, and O’Driscoll are prepared to teach the course. She also said that a number of currently untenured faculty would likely teach the course after promotion and tenure. Garvey explained that Prof. Gudelunas is the “most obvious” colleague to teach the class now.

Assoc. Dean Im reminded the committee that it was asked to consider this course proposal, prior to its review by the UCC via its Social Science Core Review Unit, and added that if it requires substantial changes, the revised course must come back to the ASCC.

The Chair directed the committee to focus the discussion solely on approving the present proposal.

Prof. Johnson spoke in favor of the motion because she deems the staffing and overload issues to be the Dean’s area of concern.

Prof. Nantz said she was reticent to approve a course that may not run due to staffing. She added that the staffing issue is a part of the course proposal, so it was a relevant consideration for the committee.

The Chair said that staffing and overload were a critical issue that may require additional discussions wit the Dean. The Chair directed the committee to separate the staffing issue from the motion to approve to the proposal.

Committee members discussed the routing process for consideration as a Core Social Science course. A Social Science Review Unit, managed by the UCC Chair will review the proposal and report their recommendation to the UCC, which will vote to approve or not. A parallel process will determine whether the course will be included as a US Diversity credit.

Prof. Peduti asked if the syllabus scheduled ample time for presentations (one week for all students to present); he noted that the answer would depend, ultimately, on the total number of students who enroll.

Dean Im said that the presentation scheduling would depend on who is teaching it, and if it is an overload course for the instructor.

Prof. Nantz spoke in favor of the motion in appreciation of the way the proposed course would deploy the Core to encourage students to engage in interdisciplinary programs and studies.

The Chair called for a vote, with one caveat:
•    The proposers must resubmit a revised proposal to the ASCC if the UCC or US Diversity Committee require significant changes to the existing course design.

Motion PASSED (9-0-0)