Curriculum Committee Minutes
November 14, 2000
Present: Barry, Beck, Breitenbach, Clark, Kerrick, Kontogeorgopoulos, Lenderman, Livingston,
Neff-Lippman, Neshyba (chair), Pinzino, Stevens, Tomhave, Warning, Washburn. Visitor:
Ricigliano
Neshyba called the meeting to order at 9:01 a.m. The minutes for the meeting of November 7
were approved with the following correction: Warning’s name is to be added to the list of
members present.
Report on the Faculty Senate meeting held November 13
Neshyba, Barry, and Washburn attended the Senate meeting at which the package of proposed
Core rubrics was discussed. Breitenbach also attended the meeting as a member of the Senate.
The Committee’s representatives reported that the Faculty Senate accepted the Core package
with minor revisions and agreed to send it on to the faculty for deliberation. The minor revisions
were made in the Connections rubric, where the Senate replaced the word “these” in guidelines
II.a. and I.d. with the word “multiple.” The Senate also removed the word “these” from guideline
III. In the Social Scientific Approaches rubric, the Senate removed the phrase “within a society”
from the first sentence of the learning objectives. The Senate also revised guideline I.b. to read
“examine the need to simplify or describe the observed world in order to construct a model of
individual or collective behavior.” After a brief discussion, the Committee expressed its approval
of the revisions made by the Senate.
Breitenbach reported that the Senate will recommend that the proposed Core rubrics be moved
as a single package. An accompanying procedural motion will suggest that the rubrics be taken
up in turn and that a final vote on the entire package take place at a subsequent meeting, for
which adequate notice will be given to the faculty. Barry stated that he will move the adoption of
the Core package and provide a brief summary of the process that produced it. As the faculty
proceeds through the package, the conveners of the task forces will introduce each rubric by
reading it aloud and offering a brief description of the most important issues identified by the task
force. Barry will give the conveners a copy of the synopsis of issues that he prepared for the
Faculty Senate. Washburn will see to it that the faculty receive copies of the proposed Core
package before the faculty meeting. She will send it by e-mail, post it on the web, and distribute it
in hard copy.
Consideration of revision to the Curriculum Statement
Barry reported that he had revised the current Writing in the Major requirement by substituting a
reference to the Writing and Rhetoric Seminar for the existing reference to the Communication I
course. The revised requirement reads as follows: “Writing in the Major: Because the Writing
and Rhetoric requirement anticipates a further development of writing abilities throughout the
undergraduate years, it is appropriate that all students should encounter substantive writing
experiences within their major fields of study. Each department, school, or program with an
undergraduate major shall demonstrate to the Curriculum Committee that the major contains
significant writing expectations within its curricular requirements.” ACTION: Neff-Lippman
M/S/P that Barry’s revision of the Writing in the Major requirement be inserted in the
Curriculum Statement as section V.C., with the appropriate re-lettering of subsequent
points in section V.
Kerrick asked about the provision in the Curriculum Statement that requires the approval of the
Dean for exceeding the permitted number of units in a major. Barry said that this provision is
unchanged: the Dean’s approval is currently required.
Kontogeorgopoulos asked about section IV.D.2, which indicates the minimum number of Core
requirements that should be taken by students who enter the university with advanced standing.
Section IV.D.2.a. states that students entering with sophomore standing should complete the
Connections Core and four additional Core areas; section IV.D.2.b. states that students entering
with junior standing or above should complete Connections and three additional Core areas.
Kontogeorgopoulos urged that the number of additional Core units be reduced, both to respond to
the shrinking of the size of the Core from 12 to 8 units and to encourage transfer students to
attend UPS. In reply to a question by Stevens, Tomhave estimated that typical UPS students
have completed 7 of 12 Core requirements by the time they begin their junior years, but he also
noted that this pattern is based on a policy that permits most students to double-count courses for
the Core and their majors. Stevens suggested that our expectations for transfer students should
correspond roughly to the typical experience of our four-year students. Tomhave noted that the
matter under discussion is part of a larger question of whether a four-year liberal arts college like
ours can or should seek to attract transfer students. He stated that UPS does not participate in
an agreement about the transferability of the Associate of Arts degree, and he thought that the
decision not to participate had served the university well. Breitenbach reported that the topic of
transfer students had come up in the Faculty Senate’s discussion of the Core package; he
assumed that it would be raised during the faculty meeting as well. ACTION: Barry M/S/P (with
one abstention) that the number of additional Core units be reduced by one in section
IV.D.2.a. and in section IV.D.2.b.
Tomhave asked the Committee to consider whether to replace the word “should” in these two
sections with the word “must.” However there was not enough time to continue the discussion.
At 9:51 a.m. Stevens M/S/P to adjourn.
Respectfully submitted,
William Breitenbach
Secretary