Arts and Sciences Curriculum Committee
Minutes
March 19, 2013

•    didn’t get tot hem in our last meeting
•    Motion to approve Xie/Fernandez
•    Approved 5-0-1

•    Motion to approve Fernandez/Im
•    Approved 6-0-1

FTM 132 – Web Design
•    Motion to approve: Lacy/Fernandez
•    Discussion:  Im – they do a better job at explaining how the staffing will work
•    Passed Unanimously

FTM 107 – TV Genre
•    Motion to approve: Im/Ruffini
•    Discussion:  Im – this course may be taken twice, if so, then in the catalog description it should say this course may be taken twice with different letter designations.
•    Johnson – wouldn’t there be different section letters for the different genres?
•    Im – it hasn’t been done yet, the Registrar is working on it.
•    Nantz – I don’t like the way they do it – not consistent with other courses we teach. Why not have separate distinct courses?
•    Im – more common with seminars, registrar does this with other courses,
•    Rosivach – we do this in Latin – LA 220/221
•    Johnson – but you can’t take LA 220 twice, that’s a difference
•    Ruffini – Will they be turning in different course descriptions/applications for each genre?
•    Im – I agree, this is not the most delicate way to do it.
•    Rosivach – but it is convenient
•    Peduti – is this our discernment or the registrar’s? 
•    Johnson – they say it’s modeled on their Film Genre course, does this mean they are doing the same numbering/lettering issue, and if so, that must mean it’s working fine.  What does the catalog description for Film Genres say?

FTM 102 –
•    Motion to approve: Im/Peduti
•    Im – we didn’t have any substantive issues, we had an issue with the proposal itself, we didn’t know who proposed it.
•    Peduti – it is clear that Mark Scalese is now the proposer, but course taught by adjuncts who are experts in this field.
•    Johnson—it seems common practice for FTM
•    Approved 8-0-0

FTM 109:  Sexual orientation/gender
•    Motion to approve: Lacy/Fernandez
•    Discussion:  Im: I think we saw this course as a special topics course last year, they ran the course and it was successful
•    Peduti:  content – 35% of the course relies on two comparison papers?  What’s the percentage for each paper?  How is that going to work out? Maybe we need some clarification on the syllabus for the students?
•    Lacy:  That type of calculation is easy to do…
•    Im:  this doesn’t seem problematic to him. 
•    Approved 8-0-0

•    Motion to approve: Xie/Peduti
•    Nantz: It was my mistake most likely when I cut the minutes to include them
•    Im:  Was this requested by Engineering School?
•    Nantz:  Yes, they wanted to see things more directly related to Engineering.
•    Approved 8-0-0

* At the moment Rosivach saw this communication as a simple announcement but if the committee so chooses it can vote to add the matter  to the agenda for discussion and a vote, probably at a subsequent meeting.
4a.:  How did this proposal disappear from Mentor? 
•    Im:  The reason the proposal disappeared from Mentor is that Dean Crabtree
mistakenly approved the item via Mentor.
•    Rosivach – that is a problem with Mentor, that the Dean can override the Committee in this way.
•    Im – There seem to be several problems with Mentor that need to be addressed
•    Rosivach – we have a page of instructions for course proposers and it is out of date.  We shouldn’t change this on our own, it should go to the CAS faculty to be approved.  But we can’t do that until we finally know how this set of fixes will be worked out.
•    Im – What we really want is to get the Mentor protocol in line with the ASCC protocol; and we want to bring the Registrar on board so they can use it as well, because the information is all there for them.
•    Rosivach – once the different courses, etc, get approved, then it goes to Registrar’s office, and they need to be aware that these items are coming.

4b:  DMLL changes:
•    Ruffini – doesn’t understand the credit issue all that well.  Is there any other instance where the ASCC needed to decide on anything to do with credits before?
•    Rosivach – I came before the committee for Latin courses to get the extra credit
•    Im – our interest is to double check their reasoning.
•    Xie – if this proposal is approved; will those who do more work have to change their pedagogy?
•    Johnson – they don’t have to, but they won’t be paid for it.  We are changing the credits to better fit what we actually do now in the courses. 
•    Ruffini – should we put on the agenda, and is it our purview, for us to look at the number units for the courses?
•    Nantz:  what is the difference between simply more online homework and a hybrid course?  This is something that we might see in the future – how do we think about this? How do we talk about contact hours via assignments accomplished?
•    Im:  Contact hours is the issue
•    Rosivach – contact hours and the rest are serious questions, but not our purview.
•    Ruffini – Now all DMLL courses will be 3 credits?  These might need to go through ASCC as new courses.  If at some point in the past we voted to approve the new courses in their 3 credit form, the 4 credits courses weren’t technically approved by this committee?  So shouldn’t we vote on this since credits is something we look at on the course proposal form?
•    Rosivach – I feel it went directly and only to Orin. 
•    Motion to approve: to approve the DMLL decision to decrease their credit hours to 3 from 4:  Ruffini/Nantz
•    Im – I’m not sure what we are trying to accomplish by this motion as it was previously just a communication.
•    Rosivach – we have this option, and I’ve always had it on the agenda as such.
•    Im:  We’re not trying to retroactively approve anything are we?
•    Rosivach – No.
•    Im – as a matter of principal, they need to submit these on forms, because they are credit changes, then we should approve them. Because as it is put now, it’s not clear what we are doing today.  Do we as a committee have a practice of approving credit hour changes?  If so, then we should do it properly. 
•    Nantz – We should have a say, but I don’t know if I agree they need to submit new course proposal for every course.  Are you saying they need to fill out a new course proposal form?
•    Im – this could also be a program change, too. 
•    Rosivach – The Chair of the ASCC does several odd sorts of things (for example, the Chair approves course number changes, is supposed to determine if the course is a substantial change or simply a number change. If a substantial change, or course name, description, etc., are they substantial enough to go to the committee? If not, it stops with Chair) In a way, I can see this falling under that broad category as well – if there is a change of number of credits, the Chair would look and see if it’s a substantial enough change to go to the committee.  They fall under the discretion of the Chair – if you’re unsure of something, then take it to the committee.  This could be interpreted as such – I did not think I should make this decision on my own, so I brought it to the Committee.
•    Ruffini:  I support Rosivach’s view. I think it would be rude to say to the DMLL to come with program proposal
•    Im – yes, but you want to be on record that the ASCC believes the previous way this was decided upon was not the way it should have happened.
•    Johnson – do we know if it came to the committee or not?
•    Ruffini:  Would like to revise the motion:  … and go on record as stating that changes in course credit hours are the purview of the ASCC through the prerogatives of the Chair as part of the committee’s concern with the integrity of courses.  Nantz still seconds it… 
•    Final motion:  Move the ASCC approve the DMLL decision to decrease their credit hours to 3 from 4; and go on record as stating that changes in the course credit hours are the purview of the ASCC through the prerogatives of the Chair as part of the committee’s concern with the integrity of courses. 
•    Approved 8-0-0

•    The only pending items are those which come up today:  sub-level shell courses.
•    ALSO,  and it looks like we won’t have a meeting in April or May.
•    Chair’s actions since last meeting:

o    I agreed that EN 230 (Special Topics: Nineteenth Century American Literature), which was approved as a special topics course but never taught can be taught as a special topics for the fall.
o    Approved MU200 Special Topics: Choral Music History and Practice.
o    Approved EN210 (Roots of English Poetry) as a special topics course.
o    Approved PO190 Special Topics: Border Politics