FACULTY ASSOCIATION MEET AND CONFER NOTES- September 24, 2001

 

Faculty Association:            President Fisher, Andrew Larkin, Terry Peterson, Jack McKenna, Judy Kilborn, Bill Langen 

Sunshine Shaney, Notetaker

 

Administration:            President Saigo, Steve Ludwig, Ruth Meyer, Roland Specht-Jarvis, Lin Holder, John Burgeson, Diane Burlison, Laurel Allen

Jackie Zeiglmeier, Notetaker

 

Guests: Roya Majid, Mark Mills, King Banaian, Piotr Pryztula, Jean Hoff

 

FA:  Let me just say a big welcome to both returning faculty and administration, new faculty, administration and guests.  This is the first meet and confer of the year. (Introductions)  We have three items on today’s agenda.  We will do the Mass Communication Curriculum proposal first.

 

Curriculum-Mass Communications

FA: I would like to give a brief overview.  The reason for this proposal is to address in a rational way what we do in our program, which is a 3-credit program. There are several courses we teach in this department very heavily involved with lab work.  Students have to do quite a lot of work in labs, Broadcasting being the most.  We also have courses in Advertising that do campaigns that have a lot of work outside classrooms.  We have put forward this proposal to change Broadcasting to 4 credits to acknowledge the amount of work put into these classes.  We would like to clarify that it is completely based on the rationality of making sure the students are getting enough credit for what they are doing and this does not reduce the number of contact hours for the students.

 

ADM:  How long are your labs?

 

FA:  It varies because they each work one day a week in the newsroom, but the average is 7 to 8 hours a week.  The major reason we put in for these changes is we spend just as much time in class as everyone else but about 5 times more in lab.

 

FA:  We conduct lecture and discussion in classroom but above all when students go out to prepare on the materials, the work outside the class is more than what we spend in class.

 

FA:  This doesn’t include advertising in this proposal.

 

ADM: If you were confronted with a choice to work with the current system or to commit to a 4-credit system for your department, but had to guarantee that every faculty taught the 12 credits what would you say?  Are you able to change your curriculum for those requirements?

 

FA:  We have made an attempt at that and yes it is possible.

 

FA:  The big pile of changes that we tried to put through last year kept all the professors in broadcasting at 12 credits.  The only difference was 4 3-credit classes.  Yes, we can do that.

 

FA:  We are a nationally accredited program and the conversion would meet all the guidelines and requirements for that.

 

FA:  The professors are in the labs while the students are working.

 

FA: Any questions or follow up on the rationale on this?

 

ADM:  I think the issue has been addressed.  I have a lot of hands-on experience with this.  There are many ways to handle this.  We have expectations that students will participate and get credit for it.  The way that you’re describing is one way to do it.  Part of the difficulty is how you define “lab”.  The contract defines “lab” in a particular way.  Unfortunately, the contract speaks in a more traditional science aspect.

 

FA:  What is the definition of “lab”?

 

ADM: The contract says from a workload standpoint you need to be given one hour of workload per two contact hours.

 

FA:  So what is the problem?

 

ADM: In the way you are talking none of your courses have been defined as having a lab component.  If you’re saying you have a 3 credit class and 3 credits of lecture time and then 3 credits of lab its an issue if it’s not reflected in your workload.  I would want to be sure we all understand the difference.

 

FA:  Two contact hours per lab hour and our labs meet that.  Do we need to re-describe our courses to you?

 

ADM:  That might be helpful.

 

FA:  I think an issue is to make it more clear about our labs.  I think it would be very easy to do that and make it more detailed.

 

FA:  The students work in groups in lab and we just need to explain it better for the administration to review it.

 

FA:  Do you have some advice for them to address the clarity on this issue?

 

ADM: I don’t have a lot of advice today.  I did give some advice in the memo.  I wasn’t real sure of the issues you were going to bring today.  There’s no simple answer to this, but I’m open to whatever we decide is the best way to handle this.

 

FA: Maybe we could have some subsequent meetings between the Administration and Mass Communications.

 

FA:  The main concern is to redefine the lab and why we have them in this way.  Could I propose to rewrite that and send it to you?

 

FA: Some curriculum cannot be changed due to the national accreditation guidelines.

 

ADM:  The guidelines for national accreditation will be changed and are becoming a little more open to what you put in as long as certain criteria are met.  What I foresee is that if we don’t look at the whole picture we will lose sight of the larger issue.  Solving your problem could create problems in other areas.  If we can look at the total curriculum and see how it fits best and still meets the national guidelines that would be better.

 

FA:  Do you think we would be better served taking an entire deparment approach to this?

 

ADM:  I think that will help you a lot.  Please consider the following fact: when much of the curriculum was thought out this was not created new at that time.  The computer use and Internet was not figured into that. 

 

FA:  So we are going to go through revisiting the workload and curriculum and put forward another proposal?

 

ADM:  I think it’s a good idea to have us deal directly with the Mass Communications Department.

 

FA: I think we can work together on this one and work with the department and administration to meet mutual objectives.  Perhaps we would like to be in contact.

 

 

FA: The second curriculum issue is Social Studies but we are waiting for the chair. Should we go to another issue?

 

Diversity Conference

FA: The next issue is the Diversity Conference.  We had a list from him regarding this conference and the Executive Committee passed a motion to support the idea of a Diversity Conference.  We’ve invited him into Senate tomorrow.  We do have some questions regarding the opportunity for faculty to participate in this activity, so perhaps we can have some discussion on the selection.   Does the Administration have some ideas on this?

 

ADM:  I believe this list came from a brainstorming session.  I think what they attempted to do was to cover a broad range of faculty.  I think that was the intent of this list.  I think the more important piece here is that all areas are included.

 

FA:  One of the items in the Executive Committee is if this is Faculty support it is important to have buy-in for the Faculty making it available for whoever would like to participate.  If this is just a draft we could still put a call out to have an election.

 

FA: Another concern is that we have quite a few representatives on the committee who have done a lot of work on this.  People need to be involved in the decisions.

 

ADM: The only piece I know of that had been discussed is the purpose of the committee.

 

FA: Another issue is getting the information out there so grant money could be received.

 

ADM: Could you start an election quickly so we can move forward with this?

 

FA: Faculty Senate will approve this tomorrow and then I can put a call out for nominations but there is a concern about doing something this big in such a tight time frame.  I guess a lot of us would rather see it done right than have it come off not quite right.  Is there some reason for the spring date?

 

ADM:  It was an event to bring us together. MnSCU has a Diversity Conference in the fall next week.  This is the second annual one.  Next year there will be another one planned in October and it could possibly be an event we hold on our campus.

 

FA: Is this a University-wide conference?

 

ADM:  Yes.

 

FA: Do we need something as far as size for the planning committee?

 

ADM: You should get an indication from him tomorrow.

 

Composition Exemption, Department of English

 

FA: Currently we have several ways of exempting people for Eng 101.  There’s also AP credit in terms of having a formal record of this and we are running into a problem. The department has no way of knowing a students’ AP scores.  We are requesting that waiving the exempt part of taking Eng 191 be indicated on their transcript so that students don’t end up wandering around trying to figure out how to make this happen.  We would like to request the AP scores be shown on their transcripts.

 

ADM: Did records give you any indication of if they could do this easily?

 

FA: No, they have been resistant to doing anything about it.

 

ADM:  In anticipation of you bringing it forward I can take it back and find out more specifically if there’s other issues besides getting the new system set up at the time.  I will find out if there are other issues in dealing with this.

 

FA: That would be nice if we could at least see something on the horizon.

 

ADM:  We don’t have the option of waiving a student according to their AP score.  I’m quite sure it violates MnSCU Policy. Once we find out what we can and can’t do then I am in agreement that we need to find a way to make that known on a student’s transcripts.

 

FA: It puts a lot of pressure on the students and causes a lot of frustration.

 

Curriculum-Social Studies

ADM:  The Social Studies curriculum has been a problem for a while.  I am very appreciative that the Committee has finally pulled together a system that can work for all of us.  The only remaining issues are three specializations: Psychology, Anthropology, and Social Sciences.  We had two reasons for not approving these.  First, there have been very few, if any, in those specialty areas under the old curriculum and second, with the profile of learning being developed in the Minnesota graduation standards it is not likely that students with those specializations will meet the needs of Minnesota school systems and they become less desirable employees.  The Dean also believes we will not be able to staff Social Science.

 

FA:   One concern is what kind of data is being used to predict that there is no demand at all for either of the majors.

 

ADM:  We have looked through and found that it is absolutely minimal, if not zero.  The largest number of students in a specialized area of Social Studies is in History.

 

FA:  Since Economics has a bigger piece of the profile we expect to increase enrollment.  What do you see as the resource cost of leaving them on the curriculum?

 

ADM:  It is not a resource issue it is a curricular issue.  Why would we want to put on a program that has absolutely no students?

 

FA:  It’s only a few lines in the book.

 

ADM:  If we get the students where do we get the additional resources?

 

FA:  It doesn’t actually need any additional resources.  I think there is another argument that by eliminating entire departments from having a possible teacher major, that makes them second-class citizens observing this variety of social studies majors.  It takes out the incentive of regarding social studies as one area of interest.  I could imagine someone saying why would we dedicate a course in this when we get no benefit?

 

ADM: But those departments don’t have a major anyway.

 

FA:  Not currently but maybe they will in future.  These are various emphases and if you look at the entire Social Studies major most of the curriculum is something that all the majors have in common and this is more the final emphasis that students want to put on it.  Because we are not really looking at eliminating whole programs but just eliminating three tracks to complete those final credits for the Social Studies major.  I guess given the fact that we have just gone through an entire change in the curriculum, I would urge that these be put in place and maybe the questions of whether they should be allowed should come up in a couple years.  The question of whether they’ll ever be a large class is a big issue for Administration.   I would like to request that these be allowed to stay on for a couple years and see if those predictions are true. 

 

FA:  So there was a suggestion on the faculty side that perhaps it would be an option to temporarily let these programs go through to see if the recent licensure change would affect the number of students.  Will that be okay?

 

ADM:  I don’t want to give a definite yes on what we will do with this.  I don’t know why we would want to approve something that doesn’t seem to have a future in a variety of ways.  I am not willing to say yes today, but certainly we can think about it.

 

FA:  All of these proposals came pretty much under the direction of the Social Studies coordinator and we all signed off on it.  It may be wise to go back to independent departments to see if they really want this.  I don’t know that they went through the department curriculum process, but they were passed.

 

ADM: Is there some faculty process who can look at this?  The four principals are there and we are ready to approve it as soon as we resolve this. 

 

FA:  My suggestion would be to bring people from the affected departments. 

 

ADM: I would like to see some data just as much as you would.

 

FA: Thank you. I think we covered most of the different aspects of that issue.

 

ADM: Is 10 days enough for them to put another proposal forward?

 

FA: I think if it will take longer than 10 days for Mass Communications, we will get in touch with you.