Curriculum Committee Minutes
January 30, 2001
Present: Beck, Breitenbach, Clark, Kirkpatrick, Kontogeorgopoulos, Livingston, Mehlhaff, NeffLippman, Pinzino, Stevens, Warning, Barry, Lenderman, Tomhave, Washburn
Minutes.
Mehlhaff pointed out that Breitenbach, not Pasco-Pranger, should be listed as the Chair of the
th
th
Japanese Studies subcommittee in minutes of January 16 . Minutes of January 16 and
rd
January 23 approved as posted.
Discussion of Curriculum Statement.
Barry reminded committee that in previous meeting, the order of the sentences in V [five] C. was
reversed. The issue of whether to keep the statement on multicultural context in the Curriculum
Statement was then discussed. Warning asked whether we should keep it in the statement.
Barry moved that the curriculum committee let the faculty decide whether to eliminate it or not.
Stevens seconded the motion. The motion to keep V.C. of the Curriculum Statement as
amended passed unanimously.
Discussion then turned to V.E. (Writing in the Major). Barry indicated that, of the three
paragraphs that discuss Writing in the Major in Addendum A of “Department and Program
Curriculum Review: A Self-Study Guide,” the first is included in V.E. of the Curriculum Statement.
Washburn directed committee members to look at the core guidelines for Communication I for the
three paragraphs describing Writing in the Major.
Mehlhaff asked whether “shall” should be removed, and whether the language was strong
enough. Neff-Lippman moved that we accept V.E. of the Curriculum Statement as it stands.
Barry seconded the motion. Breitenbach stated that the grammar of the first sentence of V.E.
was problematic, indicating that a Writing and Rhetoric Seminar cannot “anticipate.”
Kontogeorgopoulos agreed. Barry proposed a friendly amendment to change the wording of V.E.
to read “Because the faculty values development of writing abilities…” Neff-Lippman accepted
the amendment as friendly, and after a vote, the motion to accept V.E. as amended by Barry
passed unanimously.
Moving on to V.F.1., Mehlhaff stated that the requirement that “no more than 9 units may be
required in the major field” was unrealistic, and did not reflect the current situation where several
departments have surpassed 9 required units for their major. Mehlhaff moved to change “9 units”
in V.F.1. to “10 units”. Stevens seconded the motion. Breitenbach asked about how many
departments required more than 9 units in the major field. Barry brought up the issue of the
reduced core requirements (in terms of total number of core units), and asked whether we should
be realistic about how those 9 or 10 units will be affected by the new reduced core. Stevens
pointed out that the limit on major requirements used to be 11 or 12 when UPS had a 36 unit
graduation requirement, but that this went down to 9 when UPS went to 32 units. Breitenbach
stated that reducing the core was meant to allow students more flexibility to take electives, rather
than opening up space for departments to add more units to their major requirements. Washburn
indicated that this was a can of worms, and that this issue (and V.F.1. generally) should be left to
faculty to discuss and decide. After a close vote, a hand vote was taken: 6 for the motion, 6
against, and 1 abstention. The motion to change V.F.1. to include 10 units rather than 9 did not
carry.
Neff-Lippman then moved to approve the Curriculum Statement as amended by the Curriculum
Committee. Stevens seconded the motion. Mehlhaff asked why guidelines for required minor
units were not also included in the Curriculum Statement. Barry suggested that he could draft a
statement about minor units and place it into this section. Stevens asked if minors appeared on
transcripts, and Tomhave affirmed that they do. Stevens followed this by stating that the
Curriculum Committee was not qualified in dictating how many units should make up minors in
departments - departments are best able to decide this themselves. Tomhave reminded the
committee that it did indeed consider department needs when Exercise Science was allowed to
offer a minor that featured fewer than five Exercise Science courses.
Stevens suggested a 5 unit minimum for a minor at UPS. Washburn stated that guidelines on
minors should appear in the Curriculum Statement. Breitenbach suggested an amendment to
Neff-Lippman’s motion [to pass the Curriculum Statement as amended] that would include a
description of minor requirements, as outlined on page 13 of the Bulletin. Beck seconded
Breitenbach’s amendment. Breitenbach suggested the following language to his amendment to
Neff-Lippman’s motion: “An academic minor must consist of a minimum of 5 units within the minor
area, but no more than 6 units.” The motion passed (with one vote against) to accept Bill’s
amendment as a new letter in the Curriculum Statement [V.G, with the old V.G becoming
V.H]. Stevens expressed concern over student reaction, but Warning reminded the committee
that this will all go before the faculty for consideration.
A vote was then taken on Neff-Lippman’s motion to approve the Curriculum Statement as
amended, which passed unanimously. Applause filled the room.
Course Proposal Form Revisions.
Washburn introduced both proposed revisions to the current Course Proposal Form. Mehlhaff
stated that it didn’t make a difference which version (A or B) was passed, because faculty didn’t
pay attention to the rationale for the core areas. Kontogeorgopoulos moved to accept version A,
with Barry seconding the motion. Barry proposed a friendly amendment aimed at including (after
the Freshman Seminars and Five Approaches to Knowing subheading) a direction for faculty to
see core guidelines. Barry hoped that faculty would have a chance to think about the strengths
and weaknesses of each of the five Approaches of Knowing. Breitenbach preferred version B,
but wanted to have an even stronger message for faculty to consult the rationale for the core
areas. Stevens expressed his pleasure with the sentences included under the Freshman
Seminars and Five Approaches to Knowing subheadings. Washburn informed the committee that
few faculty consult the back of the form. Warning suggested that we put the signatures on the
back of the form to get faculty to read it. The vote for Kontogeorgopoulos’s motion failed (5 votes
for, 7 against). The committee decided to revisit the Course Proposal Form at a later meeting,
with Barry and Breitenbach working in the meantime to change the language of the revised forms.
Subcommittee Reports.
Warning expressed his immense delight that subcommittees were starting to correspond by
email. Warning asked if the committee should adapt this as general policy, and after a period of
silence, Warning reiterated his joy about the committee’s move towards cyber-communication.
Beck then reported on the Study Abroad review. He said the subcommittee was pleased with the
Study Abroad’s Program’s review responses, and Beck moved to approve the Study Abroad
review, pointing out that the subcommittee was unanimous in its recommendation. Beck went
over some of the issues raised during the review, and these included the following points: the
study abroad program falls outside the regular review procedures of department or program
reviews, and thus should have its own procedures for review (Beck suggested that Barry get
working on this); Beck suggested that Study Abroad develop mechanisms to assess its success
with students; and Beck informed the committee that Religion 263 was approved for the ILACA
program.
Breitenbach asked if the subcommittee inquired about how study abroad affects majors in
departments. Breitenbach also asked - in light of the Budget Task Force report to the Senate in
recent weeks - if the subcommittee discussed the drain on university resources that Study Abroad
represents. Beck stated that the subcommittee did not discuss the first issue (majors), and
although the budget issue was raised, the subcommittee decided that it fell outside their mandate.
Barry stated that departments need to structure their majors to ensure enough on-campus
experiences. Breitenbach asked If the committee would be “OK” with departments limiting their
majors in this way. Barry said that it was really up to each department. Kirkpatrick pointed out
that in Biology, there are a fixed number of upper level courses that need to be taken on the UPS
campus. Neff-Lippman called the question, and other than one vote against, the motion to
accept the positive review of the Study Abroad program passed. Stevens moved to adjourn
at 9:53 am, and the motion carried.
Respectfully submitted,
Nick Kontogeorgopoulos