Lippman, Neshyba (chair), Stevens, Sugimoto, Washburn Curriculum Committee Minutes

Curriculum Committee Minutes
November 7, 2000
Present: Barry, Beck, Breitenbach, Clark, Hale, Kerrick, Kontogeorgopoulos, Livingston, NeffLippman, Neshyba (chair), Stevens, Sugimoto, Washburn
Visitor: Ricigliano
Neshyba called the meeting to order at 9:02 a.m. The minutes for the meeting of October 24
were approved as posted. The minutes for the meeting of October 31 were approved with the
following correction offered by Warning: He had not declared that International Political Economy
would not be participating in the Connections Core; he had said only that IPE’s current
introductory course (IPE 201) does not satisfy the Connections guidelines as they have been
Continued discussion of the proposed new Core
Barry reported that the Humanistic Approaches task force had accepted the revisions suggested
by the Curriculum Committee. Clark raised a question about the phrase “collective evidence” in
guideline I, but he was satisfied by the explanation provided by Barry and Neff-Lippman.
Barry reported that the Connections task force had accepted the revisions suggested by the
Curriculum Committee, with one exception. The task force had decided to remove the words
“liberal arts” from guideline I, thereby indicating that faculty from the professional schools are free
to propose courses for this rubric. Because the Connections task force was closely divided on
this issue, however, the task force will bring it to the attention of the entire faculty.
ACTION: Warning M/S/P to call the Humanistic Approaches and Connections rubrics
ACTION: Beck M/S/P to send the completed package of Core materials on to the Faculty
Neshyba turned the Committee’s attention to Barry’s draft of a revised Curriculum Statement.
Neshyba quickly mentioned the main changes that distinguish Barry’s draft from the existing
Curriculum Statement: section III.G. describes a new foreign languages requirement; section
III.H. describes a new upper-division requirement; section IV has been extensively revised to suit
the proposed new Core. Barry began to explain the changed language in section IV (“Core
Requirements for the Bachelor’s Degree”). Warning proposed that members study the changes
at home rather than spend meeting time on wordsmithing.
Neff-Lippman observed that the existing Core makes repeated references to the communication
of ideas (in general) and to writing (in particular). However the proposed new Core mentions
these matters only in the rubrics for the two freshman seminars. She wanted to know if the
Committee intended to reaffirm in the new Core requirements the University’s long-standing
commitment to writing. Washburn and Barry noted that the existing Writing in the Major
requirement had been overlooked in the process of revising the Core; they stated that the faculty
should, and likely would, reaffirm this requirement. Stevens suggested that this reaffirmation
appear in the Curriculum Statement. Neff-Lippman noted that there is a difference between the
Writing in the Major requirement and a more general expectation that writing should occur across
the curriculum. Washburn suggested that the Committee re-insert the Writing in the Major
requirement in section IV of the Curriculum Statement. Breitenbach turned her suggestion into a
motion. ACTION: Breitenbach M/S/P that Barry be charged with inserting into section IV of
his draft Curriculum Statement a suitably reworded version of the existing Writing in the
Major requirement and that he introduce said requirement with language affirming the
University’s general commitment to writing across the curriculum. Hale noted that the
Bulletin has a section on “Writing at Puget Sound” that Barry could draw upon in preparing his
statement for section IV.
Neshyba alerted members to several other issues in the draft Curriculum Statement that should
be discussed at the next meeting: the enrollment limits in Core courses; the Core requirements
for transfer students; the foreign language requirement; and the proposed upper-division
Special Interdisciplinary Major
Hale reported for the SIM subcommittee on a Special Interdisciplinary Major proposed by Jennifer
Knighton. ACTION: Hale M/S/P (with one dissenting vote) to approve Jennifer Knighton’s
SIM, with the following two conditions: (1) that Knighton submit a formalized plan of study
to the Associate Dean’s office by January 16, 2001, which reflects the availability of
courses and reflects the outcome of her petition to the Academic Standards Committee
about enrolling in two independent studies in one semester; and (2) that an outline of the
learning objectives and of the content of the two independent studies be submitted to and
approved by her SIM advisory committee prior to her enrollment in them. This motion was
passed with the understanding that Dean Barry is authorized to confer final approval on
the SIM if Knighton meets the two conditions.
At 9:51 a.m. Stevens M/S/P to adjourn.
Respectfully submitted,
William Breitenbach