Curriculum Committee Minutes
February 20, 2001
Present: Barry, Beck, Breitenbach, Clark, Kirkpatrick, Kontogeorgopoulos, Hale, Lenderman,
Livingston, Mehlhaff, Neff-Lippman, Pasco-Pranger, Pinzino, Stevens, Sugimoto, Tomhave,
Warning (chair), Washburn
Visitor: Ricigliano
Warning called the meeting to order at 9:02 a.m.
Approval of Minutes
Pasco-Pranger corrected the minutes of the Writing in the Major subcommittee’s report to add an
apostrophe, changing “Physics Departments” to “Physics Department’s”. The minutes of 2/13/01
were approved with that revision.
Discussion of English Department Curriculum Review
Warning reported that the English Department had responded to the Committee’s invitation to
discuss the Department’s delayed curriculum review by committing to finishing the review by the
end of the semester. Barry suggested an extended deadline of April 2, 2001, and this suggestion
met with the approval of the Committee.
Psychology Department Curriculum Review
Neff-Lippmann reported the subcommittee’s satisfaction with the Department’s review of its
curriculum and recommended approval of the review and the following changes to the
Department’s curriculum:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Add Psychology 101 to the major. This addition will to provide all majors with a broad
orientation to the field and strong basic introduction to methods of research.
Allow Biology 101 in combination with a “biologically based” course (251, 310, or 311) to
count toward the major. Currently, only Biology 111 counts toward the major.
Require three electives, instead of four, with two at the 300-400 level and a third at any level.
The current elective system, which involves choices from various categories, is too restrictive.
Renumbering Gender Development--Psychology 370 to Psychology 472. This change allows
it to be taught on a regular basis
Renumbering The Forging of the Psychological Tradition: Historical, Cultural, and Intellectual
Dynamics—Psychology 231 to Psychology 331. The course has consistently been taught at
a higher level above 200. This change brings the numbering in line with the course.
Renumbering Abnormal Psychology—Psychology 345 to Psychology 295. The lecture-based
format, reading of fewer primary sources, and shorter papers are more consistent with the
200-level.
Adding a new course: Behavioral Genetics, Psychology 311.
Eliminating the Psychology Minor. In the original review document, the department asked
that Psychology 201 (a research methods course) be added to the requirements for the minor
along with an upper division elective. The rationale was that the change would improve the
integrity of the minor. The subcommittee agreed that the new minor, which would include
201, was preferable to the old. However, in a subsequent discussion with Associate Dean
Barry, the department realized that it would not be able to staff this new course without
making compromises in other areas of its curriculum, something the department was
unwilling to do. Therefore, the department decided to withdraw the minor. The department
realizes, of course, that it will need to continue to offer the minor until this year's matriculating
class graduates.
Kirkpatrick questioned the implications of eliminating the minor. Neff-Lippmann pointed out the
Department’s acknowledgment that it will have to “grandfather” currently matriculated students.
Warning asked how many departments do not offer minors. Barry responded that all
departments currently offer a minor. Hale clarified that the Department’s proposal to eliminate the
minor was motivated by concerns about the integrity of the minor and the Department’s inability to
staff new sections of 201 if it were required for the minor. Breitenbach wondered whether
elimination of minor programs would encourage students to pursue double majors. Warning
asked what the purpose of minor programs is. Lenderman suggested that minors provide some
documented recognition of a concentration in a given field without completing a major.
Breitenbach asked whether and why it was important to students to have minors. Stevens
suggested that graduate programs tend to look at transcripts closely and can judge whether a
student has appropriate preparation based on coursework without a formal minor being awarded.
Warning pointed out that non-academic employers are unlikely to look at transcripts. Barry
reflected that some prestigious institutions do not offer minors, and that the concentration
indicated by awarding a minor could be indicated by other means: a resume, recommendations,
etc. He added that minor programs do offer a framework for students who want a basic
introduction to a field. Kirkpatrick responded that such a framework could be provided in the
Bulletin without calling it a minor. Neff-Lippmann returned the question to the specifics of the
Psychology Department’s request by pointing out that the Department has a large number of
minors (about 85 this year) which causes real staffing burdens. Tomhave observed that the large
number of minors also points to clear demand; this is a change with consequences. Stevens
observed that minors are often “accidental”: students accumulate a certain number of courses in
one department, then decide to do a couple more to fill out the minor. Breitenbach asked
whether the real solution to the Department’s problem is to staff 201 as needed. Barry pointed
out that there are two ways to do this: 1) add staffing to the department; or 2) reallocate current
staffing resources. Stevens observed that the Department has judged that reallocation isn’t
feasible. Warning asked whether it was within the Committee’s charge to question the
Department’s judgement in this case. Mehlhaff agreed that if the Department has made a
reasonable judgement that this change is necessary, then the Committee should approve it.
Breitenbach questioned whether this was the Department’s preferred choice, or whether it has
been backed into a corner by its inability to staff 201; he added that it is the Committee’s job to
protect the integrity of the University’s curriculum and expressed concern that curricular decisions
were being driven by staffing issues. Washburn pointed out that question #8 of the self-study
guide for curriculum reviews asks the reviewing department or program to explain how any new
courses will be staffed “within the existing complement of faculty”. Stevens observed that the
Department has found itself unable to do that. Barry posited a principle that curricular changes at
the departmental or program level can’t drive the addition of staffing; he added that circumstantial
issues (a tight budget year, possible increases in the size of the faculty in coming years) make it
desirable to delay any move that would require additional staffing for 201. Tomhave asked why
the Department thinks it is better to eliminate the minor rather than to leave it unchanged. Barry
responded that the Department has judged the minor to lack integrity as it stands. Hale added
that the Department is concerned with the lack of upper-level courses in the minor; that there is
also concern for the integrity of the major, and that in the face of tight staffing, Department
chooses to protect the integrity of the major at the expense of the minor. She also observed that
201 is a 2 credit (2 staff-load) course. Stevens asked whether present minors take 201, even
though it is not required. Hale answered that many do enroll for the course, but few complete it.
Breitenbach asserted that decisions at a local or even individual level can’t be separated from
University staffing issues; he pointed to the far-reaching effects of staffing team-taught courses as
an example. He thus questioned whether Barry’s principle (stated above) is consistently applied.
Barry reflected that he would have to think about that, but was not sure that the two issues were
comparable.
Mehlhaff raised a concern about the effect the proposed changed in the Biology requirement for
the major would have on the rigor of the major, and on the Biology Department. Neff-Lippmann
explained that this change was designed in part to accommodate a large number of students who
take BIO 101 and then decide to pursue a Psychology major; this led to a large number of
students taking BIO 111 in the Spring term. The Biology Department had been consulted and
found the change greatly preferable to the current situation. Kirkpatrick confirmed that this
change would ease enrollment pressures in the Spring BIO 111 courses and assured the
Committee that substituting BIO 101 plus an additional “biologically based” course for BIO 111
would not represent a decline in the students’ preparation in Biology or in the rigor of the major.
Tomhave asked whether approving the review implied approving the elimination of the minor.
Barry confirmed that it did.
ACTION: Neff-Lippmann M/S/P approval of the Psychology Department’s curriculum
review and the changes to its curriculum listed above. There was one dissenting vote and
one abstention.
Discussion of Special Independent Major
Warning suggested that Committee should discuss eliminating the SIM on the grounds that it
does not serve students well and depends greatly on Independent Studies which can be
inconsistent in their quality. Mehlhaff expressed concern with the program rising and falling at the
whim of one instantiation of the Curriculum Committee. Pasco-Pranger suggested that careful
and critical review of proposed SIMs by the Committee is crucial and should address some of
Warning’s concerns. Breitenbach observed that the likely impending reduction in the Core may
improve the situation by providing students more flexibility in electives. Hale observed that the
SIM guidelines may need revision as they currently provide the Subcommittee with few grounds
on which to decline a proposal. Washburn gave a brief history of the creation of the guidelines
and suggested that this is an “assessment moment”; the Committee needs to assess the current
program and make decisions regarding revision or elimination based on that assessment.
Warning suggested that the Committee charge the SIM Subcommittee with conducting this
assessment. Barry suggested that students who have completed SIMs and faculty who have
advised them might be able to provide some insight. Warning worried that this might be too much
work for the Subcommittee. Hale observed (on behalf on the Subcommittee) that there is no data
to assess. Warning suggested that the Subcommittee be charged with considering possible
means of assessment, and this suggestion met with general approval. Mehlhaff asked how this
program works into the regular review cycle; Washburn answered that it doesn’t.
At 9:50 Stevens M/S/P to adjourn.
Respectfully submitted,
Molly Pasco-Pranger