Minutes of Faculty Meeting to Discuss Curriculum issues
May 3, 2002
The meeting was chaired by Professor Tom Hinckley and was called to order at 3:30 p.m. in
Anderson 223.
Attending: Hinckley, Schiess, Harrison, Turnblom, Chalker-Scott, Wagar, Bare, Edmonds, Wott,
Bradley, Marzluff, Gara, Greulich, Boardman, Lippke, Brubaker, Reichard, Gustafson, D. Vogt,
Lee, Trudeau, Paul
Three agenda items were discussed:
a.
Rules for calling official faculty meetings
b.
Presentation of alternative curricula models
c.
Carry forward points and recommendations
1. Rules for calling official faculty meetings – apparently any faculty member can call a
faculty meeting, not just the Dean or Division chairs, but notification is needed and the meeting
must be posted to make it official. This will be confirmed for the record.
2. Alternative curricula models
Two alternative curricula have been proposed by the faculty:
A. The CTRANS model which involves 2 curricula – Paper Science and Engineering and
Environmental Science, Design and Management (with 4 options – Environmental Science
General, Wildlife Ecology, Forestry Science and Environmental Horticulture and Urban
Forestry), and
B. The Alternative 4 curricula model as shown below – General Environmental Science plus 3
curricula under Professional Forestry (Paper Science and Engineering, and Environmental
Horticulture and Urban Forestry, and Sustainable Forest Operations under Environmental
Management Programs).
The following points were discussed:
* How many curricula should we have?
A number of faculty felt that the professional side of forestry education had been short changed
in the CRANS model. It was argued that the CTRANS model is a one size fits all model,
although the crafters of the CTRANS model argue that it isn’t. Is some other model acceptable?
It was argued that the upper campus administration did not specifically tell us how many
curricula to have, but rather told us to develop curricula that would be attractive to students and
would increase our undergraduate enrollment. The CTRANS model proposes one specific
curriculum (Paper Science and Engineering) plus a more general integrated curriculum. The
alternative model proposes no integration at the freshman or sophomore year, shares with the
CTRANS model integration at the capstone level and is responding to a perceived criticism that
we are focusing on environmental science and abandoning forestry related curricula.
* How is the premise to be tested concerning the curricula model to adopt and how does
this relate to the college profile? Premise under consideration is perceived requirement of a
“single” curriculum model.
Driving factors in curriculum development are upper campus perceptions and measures, CFR
and other faculty, students, outside professional clientele, including employers and stakeholders,
and budget constraints. All of these have to be taken into account
*Class size issues – FTE and SCH
We have been criticized for having too many under-subscribed, small classes in our current
seven curricula. (We have also been criticized for our low enrollment of majors.) However, a
faculty member who teaches a large class generating a lot of SCH should be allowed to teach
smaller classes if he/she desires. We need a further analysis of the criteria for determining the
low enrollment classes that we should no longer be teaching. Limited resources and a shrinking
faculty base (fewer FTE) are going to influence the number of courses we teach. Also we can’t
sacrifice research and outreach to teach undergraduate courses; we must have the appropriate
balance of teaching, outreach and research.
*What is the core course foundation of the alternative proposal?
If we adopt the alternative proposal will we be teaching more core courses or can we integrate
core courses? For example, can we teach one ecology course that fits the window box to
wildlands concept. Do we have an adequate faculty base to teach the courses to support a two
curricula model (PSE & Esciences), a four curricula model (PSE, SFO, EHUF and ES) or either
of the two models and the current graduate program? How do we evaluate what courses will
continue to be offered (for example, ESC 221 and 322 will no longer be taught)? Who will teach
tree identification for the SFO/EHUF model – actually Sarah Reichard’s existing course can be
easily modified to accomplish this. We also don’t want the environmental science offering to be
a wet noodle, i.e, without rigor and substance.
*The curriculum identity issue
Some faculty felt that students and employers need to be able to clearly identify with a
curriculum name and there was concern expressed that the CTRANS proposal would not allow
this. On the contrary it was argued that we can overcome this problem through appropriate
marketing. The problem of SAF accreditation with the CTRANS model also surfaced. Crafters
of the CTRANS proposal felt that SAF accreditation can be handled within the CTRANS model.
Concern was also expressed about the placeholder name for the integrated curriculum in the
CTRANS model? Should it be changed?
3. Carry forward items and recommendations
a.
An advisory motion was proposed, seconded and voted on “that an overall committee (X) be
appointed by the Dean to compare the pros and cons of both curriculum proposals and that
the pros and cons be vetted to external clientele and the UW administration.” The motion
was passed with 10 yes votes, 2 no votes, and 2 abstaining votes."
b.
Is it possible to develop compromise between the two alternatives? The differences seem to
be related to (1) use of sophomore integrative courses (vs. more campus open, flexible), (2)
perception and (3) identity issues.
The meeting was adjourned at 5 p.m.
Bob Edmonds (minutes taker)