College of Arts & Sciences Planning Committee
Thursday, March 8, 2012
CNS 8 Conference Room
4:00-5:30 pm
Minutes
The meeting started with a visit
and discussion with President von Arx regarding “Strategic Priorities
in the College of Arts & Sciences. Dean Crabtree introduced
the President, who then spoke to the committee about the following
topics:
- The President recently met
with Vice Presidents and Deans to discuss strategies for moving our
institution forward. He asked Vice Presidents and Deans to
consider two themes:
1. Distinctive aspects of their schools (what makes us/schools special)
2. Describe their schools five years hence (what is new, with specificity)
- The President also asked
the committee, as well as Vice Presidents and Deans, to offer ideas for
developing “talking points” that the President and others can use in
fund raising and development. He added that effective marketing
of the university will require these talking points to articulate our
university and schools’ visions in pursuit of an invigorated plan for
the future.
- The President invited comments from the committee regarding his previous comments.
o
Dean Crabtree: There are two primary themes: an
“Over the Next 5 Years” theme, and a second
“What Makes Us Special” theme.
The third theme—What does the CAS look like five years from
now—should be addressed after we discuss the first two themes.
o Prof. Mielants:
- CAE website used to be a place for speaker’s bureau, shame that it is no longer available…
- Creative MA programs… interdisciplinarity provides important teaching opportunities… especially for MA programs in the making.
- Humanities Institute:
make it easier to apply… perhaps use an ad hoc committee to consider
smaller grants on a more regular basis.
o Crabtree:
- Let’s have a conversation
on a broader level, but please note that I am eager to discuss the
initiatives and ideas mentioned by Mielants on another occasion.
o Epstein:
- Hard to add value to the CAS vision document Dean Crabtree circulated prior to the meeting. It is a great document.
- However, when these sorts
of docs circulate with the faculty community…there is rarely any
language about fostering faculty research. World
Class Faculty = teaching and research.
- It’s not that we do not
support research; we’ve been increasing our value of research for new
hires, but the RESEAERCH language rarely emerge in our document
o von Arx:
- When I speak to people about “research” I talk about faculty-student collaborative research.
- I do talk about our
research faculty success, but the folks I speak with are more
interested in the faculty-student collaborative research.
o Epstein:
- A university cannot define itself on teaching
- What makes our faculty professors is their scholarship and research.
- I am not just a teacher I am a scholar.
- Not all research immediately relays to collaborative work with students.
o von Arx:
- FVA: I’m lookin for good ways to communicates this.
o Crabtree:
- We do want more interdisciplinary research (student, faculty, individual, collaborative with all the above).
- Part of the reason for the CORE business in the CAS vision/strategy documents.
o SYNONS:
- The President would have more to talk about this if we have him information/accounts to FVA.
- We don’t need grants per se, we could simply spotlight this type of work.
o Mielants:
- Re: admissions… can we get more international students?
- My classes benefit from international students.
- Perhaps we can offset less need-based aid and students with intl diversity.
o von Arx:
- It’s a bit easier to recruit grad students, but we're doing well.
- This year went well. 4-5% international students (applicants)
o Sauer:
- Based on my experiences at
other universities… what I see is that student-faculty relationships is
one of the biggest distinguishing trait of an FU education.
- We do it well, our docs discuss this in great detail.
- Re: global engagement…. Intl students can help bolster this.
- Only a subset of our
students get oversees, largely determined by financial resources of the
student. How do we help students without funds to do intl
research.
o von Arx:
- We
are rare… we allow students to carry their financial aid, yet still
travel costs can still prohibit some folks from going abroad.
o Crabtree:
- Maybe a discussion with Chris Johnson and faculty on study aborad program, updated
o von Arx: Service learning is also can be a way for folks to do global engagement.
o Crabtree: I tried to highlight our global perspectives infused courses, often in the CORE.
o Im:
- Championing Liberal Arts
Eduication: change to “championing liberal arts education and
research” This is the directionof the new Humanities Inst…
Research Chairs, for example.
o Crabtree:
- There are multiple
approaches to this. I always imagined “fellows” that would be
engaged in projects that were compatible with Center for Faith and
Public Life.
o Epstein:
- The higher the pedestal, the fewer the recipients… maybe smaller grants serve more people.
- Decisions, albeit in financial constraints, like low-funding for Humainities Grant, is troubling.
- Fewer funds for fewer grants is not how to support research.
o Crabtree:
- When I became Dean I
started an endowment (chacterized) to bring money to faculty
research. But the economy prevented this growth.
o von Arx:
- Can you tell me about “integrating teaching and learning” … has it had an impact in the way your students are learning.
o Epstein:
- I got involved last year in
the integrating the core initiative. I thought we moved that
project along so faculty could begin to see how this integration may be
possible.
IM: This process started in
abstraction via pathways. It is good to look for examples about
how this has been adopted. Newer faculty for example are adopting
this language in syllabi. Also FYE is a way that students have
been able to actually think about integrating the CORE.
o von Arx:
- The better stories I can tell while on the road, the more I can engage potential donors.
o Crabtree:
- New faculty are organically
adopting CORE PATHWAY language in syllabi. When you come to this
fresh, faculty are more accepting.
AARON: Gannet was working
on an assignment that required students to reflect on things they
learned from other courses that contributed to a student’s “core
pathway”
o Epstein:
- The best thing to happen in
years to the CORE is the curriculum/program revisions that have been
happening…Religious Studies, Philo, etc.
o von Arx:
- Do faculty discuss the integration of the CORE among departments or do some folks talk across disciplines?
o Crabtree:
- The process hasn’t always
been as interdisciplinary, or collegial as it could be for “counting
core credit across departments… but Sciences have done this for
years.
- Relig & Philosophy are now doing the same thing.
o Epstein:
- Yes, now your CORE
experience in HISTORY will parallel PHIOSOPHY… similar models that will
make the experience more integrated for students.
o Crabtree:
- When we hire, colleagues and departments are invested in junior faculty.
o von Arx:
- This is very helpful to get
some depth on the areas of disctinction as I speak to donors… now can
we turn to what CAS might look like?
o Crabtree:
- We will have moved to
Departments and Programs across campus that are more integrated,
even across grad and undergrad. And this will LOOK different that
it has.
IM: I would like a more
unified approach to technology… making our students tech savvy.
If a student wants to become adept at the tech sector, too many
choices, none of which are strong enough to stand alone.
o von Arx:
- How does that look? What does it look like elsewhere?
IM: We should be able to collaborate and provide a cutting edge program for entering into emerging tech fields.
o von Arx:
o Crabtree:
- We can’t get a good Dean of
Engineering without a strong vision for ENGINEERING, such as a
BUILDING. Such as the Nursing Building… distinctive spaces for
departments, but also spaces for interdisciplinarity and
integrative. If we have this, we’ll get a good dean.
o von Arx:
- How is this going forward…(early conversation on the SON ANNEX/Health –Applied Science Center)
o Crabtree:
- There is new interest in
integrated ideas (Susan Campbell, Beal, etc). ENG grew as a
phantom curricula. We can’t have that . A new Dean could be
open to do that. Closing of UC will also impact ENGINEERING for
folks unable to deal with SCI core, etc. I also like the idea of
Digital Humanities. What does that look like.
o Im: An interdisciplinary program centered on TECH. Integrate specializations.
o Perkus:
- Joint PHD
(WEB-JOURNALISM-GAMETHEORY-ANIMATION-ETC). I haven’t seen this at
the undergrad level, but this could be VERY attractive.
o Crabtree:
- More and more of our faculty identify as cross-disciplinary…everyone is a director of something.
- We have personnel policies, better part-time structures, etc. could help this. Stricter supervision included.
- We should have a major in ENV STUDIES, a minor cannot provide what a MAJOR would.
Weis:
- How about Digital Studies… reach across schools.
o Crabtree: We could do this with almost no new resources, but covering teaching loads.
o LoMonaco
o Crabtree:
- I want directorships to
move across programs. Tjis is great for the faculty member, but
tougher on the fac’s department (coverage).
o Mielants:
- Endowed Chairs.
Visiting Professor who rotates across departments in the CAS.
This could benefit many of our students.
o Crabtree:
- All Depts & prog
directors have been asked to make case statements about that exact
idea! E..g. Communications to bring in cutting-edge tech work…
and every other year it is still cutting edge, because you bring in a
new person! I hope interdisciplinary studies will search for an
endowed chair.
o von Arx:
- Thank you for your thoughts. Your contributions help me
o LoMonaco
- First-year student
question… sense of “what am I going to do with this degree” now coming
from the students not just the parents… and we need to address this in
our documents (listed above).
o Crabtree:
- Curriculum to career maps…
role/importance of liberal arts education. Asked all departments
to do a one-oage document that helps students map out curriculum to
career.
o von Arx:
- I tell stories of
successful alumni with humanities/liberal arts training (who find that
training helpful years later). I would value continuing to
discuss this further. Be in touch.
BPS Document:
Aaron: We don’t have “what folks do with a BPS” but we do have data on Jesuit Institutions, this is not an outlier idea.
Robbin: Will this pass?
Amanda: There was strong support for UC.
ROBBIN: The controversy is
SAUER: POINT OUT THIS IS NOT A BA/BS! IT IS A DIFFERENT DEGREE, WE SHOULD EXPLAIN THIS.
ERIC: It may have been the “fast pace” that caused troubles… with data folks might go forth.
ROBBIN: What I hear at faculty meetings
People mention abilitry to earn overtime pay without going ythrough theDept
Others are concerned that the students will not be cared for in a CAS version of the BPS
Others are concerned about now irrelevant issues:
We have the evening courses and time-codes, but REGISTRAT hasn’t adapted well…
Others concerned with advising burden, but the same advising structure will exist.
Some fear the students are not-prepared for college…
AARON: THIS VOTE is about the BPS…no additional courses, instructors, etc.
ROBBIN: Perceptual issues are far bigger obstacle than actual issues.
IM: The main pushback will come from several rhetorical strategies….with one message:
Are we letting in and matriculating a second-class graduate/student?
ROBBIN: What is the
presentation strategy… We’ve been working on this. Aaron, Bob,
and I will be working on finishing the packet. Robbing will edit
and send to Bob & Scott.
To be frank. I had no
investment in BPS as Acting Dean. Faculty like O’Driscoll and
Rodrigues are the ones that convinced me to fight for the
program. I hope that faculty who have supported these students in
the past will step up to support the BPS and choose to join the
leadership of it.
Bachelor of Professional Studies
a. Governance structure (as Interdisciplinary Program)
b. Packet for March 23rd meeting and vote
c. Presentation team / strategy
NEXT ORDER OF BUSINESS MEETING SCHEDULE…
Confirm remaining Spring 2012 CAS faculty meetings
Friday, March 23, 3:30-5:00, Alumni House (elections for 2012-13)
Wednesday, April 25, 4:30-6:30, Alumni House, Annual Celebration
Agenda for March 23rd CAS Faculty Meeting
a. Approval of Minutes
b. ASCC Motion to adopt the BPS program (Members of the A&C PC)
c. Elections for CAS Chair for 2012-2014
d. Elections for CAS planning committee members (2)
e. Reminder for
Nominations for Distinguished Teaching Award (Bob and Scott will
follow-up with written/email reminder)
f. Report from the ASCC (this should be annually, at the March meeting) TO NEXT AGENDA
g. Dean’s remarks
h. UC update and transition plans
i. Introduction of Strategic Priorities for discussion
Current A&S Planning Committee members:
Ex officio:
o Robbin Crabtree, Dean
o Sally O'Driscoll, Chair of CAS (2010-2012) – Bob Epstein, Acting-Chair spring 2012
o Scott Lacy, Secretary of CAS (2011-2013)
Elected (4 members):
o Amanda Harper-Leatherman, Natural Sciences (2010-2012)
o Eric Mielants, Social & Behavioral Sciences (2011-2012)
o Marti LoMonaco, Humanities (2011-2013)
o Glenn Sauer, at-large (2011-2013)
Also attending, CAS Associate Deans Joan Weiss and Manyul Im, as well as Jim Simon