Curriculum Committee
of the Faculty Senate
Meeting Minutes
September 27, 1995
Present: L. Peters, ChairJ. WilsonGuest: R. Conway
W. BoyceJ. Tobin
S. KunkelS. Wait
H. HagerupK. Bleyle
R. NobleG. Gabrielle
M. HannaJ. Moran
M. Zenzen
1.Course Proposal Form
This form was revised to include a resource impact statement. This statement will be part of the course addition and course change or drop forms and will address curriculum, facilities and personnel. The words Short Title will be changed to Transcript Title. Also, item 6 will include co-requisites. All references to the Institute Wide Curriculum Committee will be changed to the Faculty Senate Curriculum Committee and Provost will be changed to Dean of the Faculty.
2.L. Peters informed the Committee that G. Judd will work with her to include the Committee in his review of the long term implications of the change to the Writing Requirement.
3.In anticipation of a large number of course changes related to the implementation of 4x4, R. Lahey has asked L. Peters to determine what additional resources will be necessary for the Committee to handle the increased workload. Since the bulk of the changes are not expected to be ready until the summer, L. Peters recommended that a sub-committee of one faculty member from each of the five schools be formed to review the proposed c hanges. R. Lahey will report to the Committee in early November to bring the members up-to-date on the work of the Curriculum
Reform Implementation Team. L. Peters also reported that G. Judd has agreed to extend the catalog deadline. She also encouraged the Committee to present any proposed changes as early as possible.
4.Dual Majors
S. Wait prepared a proposal regarding dual majors which was distributed to the Committee. S. Kunkel also prepared a list of comments pertaining to this proposal which was also given to the Committee. The Committee’s
discussion of both documents raised several concerns. How students are counted is one of these concerns. S. Kunkel reported that, for planning purposes, (i.e. the # of sections to be offered) the Registrar’s Office will count students in both departments. Reports to the Department of Education are head count reports so the students will be counted once in whatever curriculum they designate as their primary one. Another question
was whether a dual major would be an option in certain curriculums (i.e. Biology, Biochemistry/Biophysics) A Also, transfer students, most likely, would not be able to complete a dual major. L. Peters asked the Committee to take this information back to their departments for input. This topic will be discussed at the next meeting.
5.R. Conway joined the Committee to express the concerns he heard from advisors over the lack of communication of new policies and academic requirements. Incoming students for the Fall 1995 semester were told to follow the Humanities and Social Science requirements that the Committee recommended to the Faculty Senate last Spring.
Advisors did not know that this recommendation had been approved. Bob expressed concern about the wording of the recommendation. In his opinion, the recommendation is worded to fit a 4x4 curriculum and should not be made official until 4x4 has been fully implemented. R. Conway also conveyed to the Committee strong opposition, on the part of advisors, to the 12 credit hour residency requirement included in the recommendation. They feel this will put transfer students at a disadvantage, since they will not be able to use all the credits taken at
the school they are transferring from. W. Boyce pointed out that a waiver process will be put into place. R. Conway questioned whether or not this will effect articulation agreements. Also, if regular undergraduates can transfer 12 credit hours of H&SS, then quality becomes an issue. S. Wait pointed out that Community College c courses only transfer in at the 100 or 200 level, therefore, quality is not compromised. L. Peters felt that the
residency requirement was to encourage flexibility and the possibility of early completion. M. Zenzen pointed out that students would look at it from a financial point of view and would be in favor. R. Conway added that, waiting until 4x4 is fully implemented would also be an ideal time to revise articulation agreements. It was then suggested that the Committee may want to reconsider its recommendation. L. Peters will inform G. Judd that the Committee has reservations with their recommendation and ask if he would consider throwing it back to the Committee for further deliberation before he takes any action on it.
6. The next meeting will be Wednesday, October 11, 1995 from 9:30-11:00 a.m. in Lally 207.
CURRICULUM COMMITTEE
of the Faculty Senate
MEETING MINUTES
April 13, 1995
Present: W. BoyceJ. WilsonGuest: R Mountford
J. TemplinS. Anderson-Gold
S. KunkelJ. Deery
S. WaitM. Zenzen
K. ZweierL. Peters
B. CarlsonJ. Moran
R. Bailey
1.WRITING REQUIREMENT
R. Mountford joined the Committee to offer her input regarding the Writing
Requirement. She feels that the Writing Assessment is an essential tool for
evaluating the writing skills and needs of transfer students. The writing
skills of entering transfer students vary greatly depending on the programs
offered at the school from which a student transfers. Allowing transfer students
to receive transfer credit for English Composition courses in lieu of the
Writing Assessment would not be beneficial in many cases, in her opinion.
B. Carlson pointed out that with a 4x4 structure, each course represents a greater
portion of the H&SS requirement (1/6 vs 1/8). Therefore, a transfer student
transferring in 12 credit hours and having to take Expository Writing will have
fewer options in their H&SS program.. Currently, due to insufficient funding,
there are not enough sections of Expository Writing to accommodate the students
who need to take this course. If this situation continues, then it will be impossible
for a number of students to satisfy the Writing Requirement. S. Wait shares the
same point of view. R. Mountford agreed that the needed funding is not available
to support this requirement. She again pointed out that transfer students enter
Rensselaer from a wide variety of backgrounds. All writing programs have specific
goals and not all meet the needs of Rensselaer students. Expository Writing is
specifically designed to meet those needs.
It was again pointed out that funding is the major stumbling block. As a result,
approximately 75 students are closed out of Expository Writing each fall. S. Wait
commented on the amount of effort that has gone into making Rensselaer a
better place. Getting closed out of a required course is extremely frustrating
and does not add to the improvement of the students experience at Rensselaer.
-2-
CURRICULUM COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES - APRIL 13, 1995
The Committee does not have financial resources, nor can itincrease funding.
Therefore, if the Institute cannot be convinced to do so, then the Writing
Requirement should be eliminated. He would like to see a move toward a
required communication course for all students. J. Templin pointed out that
a communication requirement was recommended by the students in the past.
R. Mountford indicated that the Language, Literature and Communication
department has been considering this idea. Tec/Pro Communication or
another upper level course, yet to be developed, are under consideration as
the required course. Also, the department feels that such a requirement
would fit nicely into the Junior or Senior year, since this is when most students
realize their writing needs. It is very difficult to motivate students in their
Freshman year. If such a requirement were put in place, the Writing
Assessment would then be abolished and the resources would be used to
develop a new course or expand Tec/Pro Communication. The faculty are
in favor of this idea.
W. Boyce commented that this may encourage students to look forward
instead of looking for ways around or out of the Writing Requirement.
J. Wilson also liked this approach. He agreed that it is difficult to teach
when students do not feel they need to learn what a course has to offer.
Juniors and Seniors would most likely take this requirement more seriously.
He also agreed with S. Wait’s comments regarding the improvement of the
students experience at Rensselaer.
B. Carlson presented a motion which recommends the discontinuation of
the Writing Assessment as of July 1, 1995. Also, that the Committee
encourage the department of Language, Literature and Communication to
develop an alternative program that would not involve the Freshman year.
S. Wait second this motion and withdrew his support for the previously tabled
motion.
The question was raised as to what the requirement would be after July 1,
1995 and before the new requirement could be developed. S. Wait suggested
that all current students fulfill the Writing Requirement, but those entering
after July 1, 1995 be exempt. R. Mountford did not feel that the Writing
Requirement should be eliminated before a new requirement was in place.
She did not like the possibility of having nothing to offer to the students.
B. Carlson felt that this would encourage Language, Literature and
Communication to develop a new program as quickly as possible.
R. Mountford also expressed concern over TA’s losing their positions if the
Writing Requirement was eliminated. J. Wilson suggested making the
program voluntary. That way the TA’s would be able to stay on. L. Peters
-3-
CURRICULUM COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES - APRIL 13, 1995
suggested using the TA’s in the Writing Center where students can get
excellent help in the interim period of developing a new program.
B. Carlson added a third part to his motion. As an interim measure, the
Expository Writing program continue on a voluntary basis and those who
need assistance should be encouraged to participate. Meanwhile, funds
currently used for the writing program should be used towards writing
enhancement on campus. For example, to support the Writing Center.
R. Bailey questioned how to encourage students to voluntarily participate
in the Expository Writing program. He then motioned to require all students
to either pass the Writing Assessment or take a Communication course as of
July 1, 1995. S. Wait agreed and suggested that this be an interim plan, and
as of July 1, 1996, the Writing Assessment be eliminated completely.
W. Boyce suggested that the Committee refrain from voting on any motion
until they can be put in writing for the members to review. B. Carlson’s
motion was then tabled.
S. Wait motioned that as of July 1, 1995 all students must pass the Writing
Assessment or a Communication course prior to graduation. This motion
was seconded. The motion was then tabled.
L. Peters asked that R. Mountford provide the Committee with an account
of available resources before the Committee votes on any of the motions.
3. The next meetings will be Thursday, April 20, 1995 and Thursday, April 27,
1995. Both meetings will be at 3:00 p.m.
CURRICULUM COMMITTEE
of the Faculty Senate
MEETING MINUTES
March 23, 1995
Present: W. BoyceB. CarlsonGuests: D. Kaminski
S. WaitS. Anderson-Gold J. Brown
R. BaileyL. Peters
S. KunkelJ. Kolb
J. WilsonJ. Moran
J. Templin
1.W. Boyce informed the Committee that, at its March 21, 1995 meeting, the Faculty Senate voted to endorse the proposal of the Faculty Senate Curriculum Committee regarding curriculum reform.
2.S. Anderson-Gold presented to the Committee, the two proposals from the School
of Humanities and Social Sciences regarding the Humanities and Social Sciences
core requirements, that were submitted to the Process Teamon Designing and
Delivering Education. The first proposal was based on the current curriculum, the
second is based on a 4x4 format. Since the proposal to change to a 4x4 format has
been adopted, J. Wilson suggested that the Committee consider the second proposal. This proposal, unlike the recommendation of the Process Team,
included a depth requirement and a residency requirement for transfer students. The School of Humanities and Social Sciences feels that a residency requirement
would insure the quality of Rensselaer’s Humanities and Social Sciences program.
J. Kolb pointed our that a residency requirement may be a problem for some
transfer students, in particular the 3-2 students. B. Carlson reminded the
Committee that the depth requirement was necessary in meeting ABET standards. It was suggested that exceptions to the residency requirement be allowed when
necessary. J. Wilson proposed that the Committee consider the proposal of the
Process Team with the addition of a residency requirement. It was also suggested
that a more stringent depth requirement be added to the proposal.
The Committee will consider the proposal of the Process Team with changes to the last sentence which will now read, students must take at least 8 credits in one
area identified by the same department number and at least 12 credits at Rensselaer. Exception to the residency requirement can be made when appropriate.
S. Anderson-Gold will ask the School of Humanities and Social Sciences to draft a
proposal based on the Committee’s discussion and present it to the Committee at
the April 6, 1995 meeting. S. Wait is not in favor of unilaterally imposed
-2-
CURRICULUM COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES - MARCH 23, 1995
requirements by the School of Humanities and Social Sciences on all Schools.
J. Wilson agreed, and suggested that a draft be prepared and more input be
gathered. W. Boyce will give the Committee members the opportunity to take
the draft to their colleagues.
The question was asked if the Writing Requirement should also be considered,
along with Freshman Studies courses. It was decided that these were separate
issues. However, S. Kunkel will provide information on previous discussions by
the Committee regarding the Writing Requirement for the next meeting.
The next meeting will be Thursday, April 6, 1995 at 3:00 p.m.
CURRICULUM COMMITTEE
of the Faculty Senate
MEETING MINUTES
March 9, 1995
Present: W. BoyceB.CarlsonGuests: G. Judd
K. ZweierL. Peters J. Newell
S. WaitR. Parsons D. Kaminski
J. TemplinJ. Deery
S. Anderson-Gold J. Wilson
R. BaileyA. Maniatty
J. KolbJ. Tobin
M. ZenzenJ. Moran
1. 4x4 Proposal
W. Boyce distributed a revised draft of the Committee’s response to the
4x4 proposal of the Process Team on the Design and Delivery of Education.
This draft expressed the reservations of the Committee regarding 4x4
and included a set of proposed principles for curricular reform and guidelines
for implementation. He thanked the Committee members for their input
and efforts that contributed to the development of this draft. He then asked
for any final changes or amendments to the draft before voting on it.
The Committee then discussed whether the voting should be done by secret
ballot or by the usual show of hands. It was decided that a secret ballot
would be used.
After some discussion, a number of revisions to the wording of the draft
were made in order to make various statements more definite.
B. Carlson then moved to approve the document as revised. The motion
was seconded. This motion was approved by a vote of 12 in favor with
1 ballot outstanding and 1 member absent.
W. Boyce again thanked the Committee members for their efforts regarding
this matter. M. Zenzen offered the Committee’s thanks to W. Boyce for
his care and sensitivity in handling this issue.
2.The Committee will begin discussing the proposal of the Process Team on
the Design and Delivery of Education regarding the Humanities and Social
Science requirement.
3.The next meeting will be Thursday, March 23, 1995 at 3:00 P.M.
CURRICULUM COMMITTEE
of the Faculty Senate
MEETING MINUTES
March 2, 1995
Present: W. Boyce, ChairS. WaitGuests: D. Kaminski
J. WilsonL. Peters J. Koller
J. TemplinS. Kunkel G. Judd
K. ZweierJ. Tobin
B. CarlsonJ. Kolb
R. ParsonsM. Zenzen
R. BaileyJ. Moran
1. W. Boyce reported that, at the February 28, 1995 meeting of the Faculty
Senate, all action taken by the Curriculum Committee was ratified.
2.4x4 Proposal
Representatives from the five schools presented their schools position
on 4x4 to the Committee.
J. Tobin indicated that the School of Architecture is cautiously optimistic.
This is an opportunity for them to revamp the curriculum, although Architecture
may not be a rigid 4x4 program in the end. There is a feeling that all three credit
hour courses cannot be eliminated and that breadth would be lost. There is also
concern over the possiblecuttingof faculty positions and the effect that such cuts
would have on the quality of the curriculum.
J. Kolb conveyed the feelings of the School of Engineering to the Committee.
The department chairmen have expressed reservations regarding 4x4. There
is the feeling that a standard has to be established to be used as a starting point
for reform. Also, the faculty do not fully support 4x4. They agree that there is
a need for curriculum reform, but do not see 4x4 as the ideal model. Concern
over the possible reduction in faculty was also expressed.
-2-
CURRICULUM COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES - MARCH 2, 1995
J. Koller represented the School of Humanities and Social Sciences. He
indicated that the faculty recognize the need for curriculum reform but do
not fully support a 4x4 format. Also, the School of Humanities and Social
Sciences has been considering four credit hour courses but feel that some
courses will have to remain three credits. The School does, however, feel
comfortable with redefining the core, although, there was some concern
expressed over the possible loss of breadth. Faculty cuts are also a concern within the School of Humanities and Social Sciences.
L. Peters spoke on behalf of the School of Management. She indicated
that J. Morone was very enthusiastic but the faculty does not share his
enthusiasm. There are concerns that not all courses will fit a 4x4 structure.
If implemented, then there should be provisions made for making exceptions.
The question of availability of resources was raised.Incorporating 4x4 into the
first two years would be fairly easy but the last two years and Graduate programs
would be far more difficult torevamp.
S. Wait indicated that, in general, the School of Science favors a 4x4
structure. Currently, the first two years of the Science curriculums
consist of all four credit hour courses, with the exception of Computer