Morris, MN
MINUTES
2002-2003 CURRICULUM COMMITTEE MEETING # 7
October 30, 2002, 8:00
a.m. Behmler Conference Room
Present: John
Schwaller, Mike Korth, Jenny Nellis, Jooinn Lee, Mary Elizabeth Bezanson, Chris
DeVries, Van Gooch, Tom Johnson David Bohlander, Danielle Stuard, Ruth Thielke,
Dorothy DeJager, and Nancy Helsper
Absent: Judy
Kuechle, Amanda Johnson, Chris Pifer, and Clare Strand
Visitors: Chancellor
Schuman, Jen Cushman and Vicki Graham
Schwaller introduced
Chancellor Schuman. Schuman addressed the Curriculum Committee to explain a new
proposed program for UMM that is currently called “The Big Idea”. This
program would provide the opportunity for every student here at UMM to study
abroad during May term after their sophomore year. One question of particular
interest to the Curriculum Committee is the issue of how many credits would be
appropriate for the course. Schuman felt proper procedure would be to have the
proposal go before CC for approval and then have CC send it to Campus Assembly.
Schuman went on to
explain how the program would operate and what financial implications would
arise. The idea is to have incoming freshman select as a class a place abroad
that they will visit as a group during the May term after their sophomore year.
The places would not be the traditional major European tourist areas; they
would be places off the beaten path but yet safe places for the students to
visit. The Students would pick the place the end of their first semester.
During the next three semesters they would learn more about their destination
through courses offered. Schuman envisions that the students would travel
together to the destination of choice and once there they would not spend the
entire three weeks as a large group but rather as several smaller groups of
15-20 students and leaders for each group, which could consist of faculty,
staff and possibly alumni. For example, we could offer choices of 3 different
5-day trips that the groups could mix and match. The groups could do some
things together as one large group. The final two years of their program would
include events that speak to their experience and possibly a graduation speaker
that is related to their destination of choice.
This idea came from the
International Programs Committee and if we do it UMM will be the only
institution in America that would have this type of program. It is important for
UMM to become more visible, to catch people’s attention but yet be
visible for the right reasons. Schuman explained that this is a major
logistical enterprise and the magnitude of it has not been underestimated.
There is a company in Chicago that does the logistics for college travel
abroad. Estimated cost for the program would be approximately $750,000 rounded
up to 1 million for additional ongoing costs. At least one full time person
would need to be hired to run the program and the students would not be charged
for the cost of the program. This would be a universal experience like that of
freshman orientation with the understanding that it is not required but
expected.
Possible funding could
come from three sources, an endowment, a grant for a 2-3 year term or funding
from a modest increase in tuition/legislative allocation. Jerry Fisher,
President of the U of MN Foundation, works with fundraising and this idea has
been discussed with him. He is very encouraging about funding for this type of
program. Before the chance to raise an endowment for the program we must show
we can do it. A grant to run the program for two to three years would be more
realistic. It is not allowable to fund the program out of sources already
strapped for funds such as our daily operating budgets. This program will help
with recruitment and the fundraising opportunities are promising because it
will be easier to get money for this type of program than for SE&E budgets.
This program will set us apart from other institutions asking for funding.
The people in Admissions
who have been consulted believe that the program will be a boon for admissions,
and that careful external testing will be done to verify that impression. It
may scare off some students but will lure many others. The timeline UMM is
looking at is a one year pilot program with this years high school seniors that
are being recruited now and their trip would be in spring 2005 and then
implement the program with this years high school juniors with their trip being
in 2006.
Implementing this program
or a variant thereof will have a large positive impact on our international
programs. At this time a handout was distributed to the committee members.
Schuman introduced Jen Cushman who has also been working on the program.
A member questioned if
this will help fill the gap in enrollment that we currently fill with transfer
students. Schuman stated that this will bring in more students but there will
still be a need for transfer students. Fitting transfer students into this
program will depend upon when the student transfers and that will be worked out
as needed.
Schuman stated that there
are two issues that keep arising; one is that it is not a good idea to let them
pick a place and that UMM should pick the place where they will travel. The
other concern is that we should let the students go to any of three or four
places we suggest. There is more flexibility and choice for the students.
A member suggested that
the educational purpose of the program should be articulated clearly for the
benefit of the program. Schuman stated it would be a powerful recruitment tool;
it is a different kind of cultural experience because it is in a different
country. To discuss the program in relation to homeland security and terrorist
issues we can build safe walls to hide behind or tear them down and go into the
world.
A member stated that an
opportunity like this is really a life changing experience.
Schuman would like to be
invited back to CC or to other groups to discuss the program and offered
everyone the opportunity to meet with him individually if they chose.
CATALOG CHANGES
African American
Studies Minor
Schwaller highlighted the
revisions for the African American Studies minor and directed the members to
Joel Eisinger’s memo to CC addressing their concerns.
MOTION: (Nellis,
Johnson) To accept the changes to the African American Studies Minor
Discussion:
A member stated that she
felt the description of Soc 3141 Sociology of Deviance should be rewritten to reflect
more of what the class is about. Schwaller indicated that CC couldn’t
change the description of a course without proposals from that discipline. CC
could send it back and not approve it. The minor was approved last spring with
this course listed, what we are taking action on now is a catalog revision. A
member stated that CC could vote to exclude that course from the list. Lee
explained that the course would be defined clearer because new faculty member
will be teaching the course and right now it is in a transitional phase. A
member voiced concern that the course could be misconstrued by students and
would like to vote against the proposal. Schwaller reminded CC that this course
is listed in the original document that was approved last spring. Voting
against this amendment would NOT remove the course from the list.
REVISED
MOTION (Bezanson, Gooch) to
remove Soc 3141 from the course list
Discussion:
Lee explained that this
is a technical area and assured CC that when the new faculty member is in place
the course will be defined. A member expressed concern of CC looking for ways
that course descriptions might be misunderstood; there are other courses that
students can misinterpret. A member responded that CC doesn’t have any
other options because it has been approved, CC needs to discuss the rhetorical
nature of the catalog.
VOTE: Motion
failed (2-4-2)
Vote on original motion
VOTE: Motion
passed (7-1-0)
Schwaller noted that we
have received the cleaned-up version of course descriptions and titles for
English. Nellis walked the committee through the proposed changes. There was
discussion among the members about including college writing as a requirement
for the major. CC had suggested that English include it in their requirements
but they did not count it in the number of courses required. Schwaller pointed
out that the statement says “a minimum of 10 courses” therefore it
could be 11 or 12 and so on. Another area of discussion was changing years not
offered to offered when feasible. Graham agreed with this and explained to CC
that the English department wants students to be aware of courses for planning
purposes even though they may not be offered at this time. There was discussion
among the members about the wording on page 2 of Form B. Helsper will correct
the wording to clarify the requirement of one of the 10 courses within the
major must be at the 2xxx, 3xxx
or 4xxx level with an HDiv designator and not an additional course to the
required 10.
MOTION: (Nellis,
Korth) To approve English changes
Discussion:
A member questioned the
object of the major to study language and literature and yet there are no
language course requirements. A member teaching literature and language in
another area stated that he believes that one is teaching language while
teaching literature. A member questioned if the concern was brought to the
English discipline. He stated it was and Graham responded that the English
department decided not to restrict the students by grouping the 3xxx level
courses and requirements.
VOTE: Motion
passed (6-0-2)
Meeting adjourned 9:30
a.m.
Submitted by Karen Van
Horn