Curriculum Committee Minutes
October 19, 1999
Present:
Barry, Breitenbach, Cannon, Cooper, Ives, Kerrick, Kirkpatrick, Kontogeorgopoulos,
Mitani, Neff-Lippman, Neshyba (chair), Pasco-Pranger, Pinzino, Stevens, Sugimoto,
Tomhave, Warning, Washburn
Visitor:
John Finney
Neshyba called the meeting to order at 4:03 p.m. The minutes for the meeting of October 12,
1999, were approved as posted.
Announcements.
Neshyba announced the appointment of a subcommittee for Special Interdisciplinary Majors:
Cannon (chair), Pasco-Pranger, Kontogeorgopoulos, and Barry.
Neshyba introduced Jodi Mitani, the student representative to the committee.
Neshyba asked members whether they thought it desirable to alert the faculty at the
upcoming faculty meeting about two curricular questions raised by the proposal for a new Core:
(1) Who would write the guidelines for the new Core rubrics? (2) In the transitional period
between the old Core and a new Core, could some courses meet requirements for both Cores?
Neshyba invited members to send him their reactions by email. Because of the faculty meeting,
there will be no committee meeting on October 26.
Explanation of standards governing length of semesters.
John Finney explained that a semester is conventionally 15 weeks long, but that many
institutions have departed from that standard for reasons having to do with their own traditions
and their academic programs. The semester at UPS is 14 weeks plus 1 day in the fall and 14
weeks plus 4 days in the spring. Finney urged the committee to make decisions about the
academic calendar based on the effect on our academic program, not based on what other
institutions do. When Pinzino asked if he had a recommendation about how to lengthen the fall
break, Finney suggested that it would be better to begin earlier or end later rather than
commandeer one of the existing instructional days. In response to a question by Breitenbach,
Finney said that accreditors would not likely be concerned unless an institution reduced its
semester-length significantly below 15 weeks. Warning asked whether it would matter if a
semester were 14 weeks, as opposed to 14 weeks plus 1 day. Finney replied that objections
would probably come from affected faculty, rather than accreditors.
Report of the Calendar Subcommittee.
Washburn reported for Livingston, who was ill. She distributed a sheet that set out four
options for the fall-semester calendar. Option 1 gained 3 days by starting earlier, ending later,
and holding exams through Saturday. Under this option fall break would run from Monday
through Wednesday morning, students would be released after the Wednesday morning before
Thanksgiving, and one additional instructional day would be created. Option 2 gained 2 days by
starting earlier, but the semester would end with the current schedule for reading period and
exams. The two additional days would be distributed as in Option 1, but there would not be an
additional instructional day created. Option 3 gained 1 day by pushing the reading period and
exam period one day later. The one day would be added to the fall break on Tuesday. Option 4
is our current fall-semester calendar. Washburn proposed that the committee discuss the options
without attempting to come to a decision at this meeting.
Cooper asked about the half-day holidays. Washburn stated that our students, who now
come from across the nation, have greater need for travel time before Thanksgiving Day. Kerrick
observed that instructors might be inclined to cancel classes on these half days. Pinzino asked
about orientation, and Washburn observed that it might be desirable to shorten orientation so that
it did not stretch across two weekends. Washburn noted that none of the four options reduced
the number of “lab weeks.” Pinzino asked if the possibility of shortening the exam period had
been considered. Subcommittee members replied that a four-day exam period would mean that
not all instructional times could have an exam period. Breitenbach asked what percentage of
courses actually held final exams. A general discussion ensued about how late into December it
would be possible or acceptable to extend the exam period.
Process reports from subcommittees.
Kerrick reported that the Natural World subcommittee had met and that it would be
considering the clarity of the Natural World guidelines on matters of method and course content.
He was particularly concerned about why some courses that meet the guidelines are not included
in the Core. Cannon noted that under our current Core, a course is offered for inclusion at the
initiative of the instructor; thus, all Core courses are voluntarily in the Core. He wondered
whether that would continue to be the case under the proposed new Core.
Barry urged subcommittees not to attempt to conduct all their business by email. He
observed that actual meetings can promote consensus and efficiency.
Warning asked if there were a target deadline for subcommittee action. Neshyba said that
subcommittees should try to re-authorize all “non-controversial” Core courses by the end of the
fall semester. Washburn noted that in the last “fallow year” the courses were reapproved in
bunches, not all at once. She also exhorted the subcommittees to get cracking before the faculty
dumps some enormous assignment on the Curriculum Committee as part of the Core revision.
The next meeting will be held on Tuesday, November 2, in Library 134. At 4:59 p.m.,
Stevens M/S/P to adjourn.
Respectfully submitted,
William Breitenbach
Secretary