Faculty Senate Curriculum Committee
Minutes from the meeting on October 11, 2006
Kevin Craig
June Deery
Jeff Durgee
Prabhat Hajela
David Hess
Les Gerhardt
Sharon Kunkel
Wally Morris
Julia Leusner
Lee Odell
Dick Smith
Dave Spooner
Sam Wait
Ken Warriner
Mike Wozny, chair
1) The minutes from 9/27/06 were approved as amended.
 Item 2:“The FSCC approved the wording defining the culminating experience”.
 Item 3, 2nd paragraph should read: Half TA/Half RA Issue- Mike Wozny stated that the
Faculty Senate keeps passing the issue back to this committee. Prabhat Hajela suggested
that in response to the recent Middle States Accreditation visit, four Institute level
committees will be formed to look into a whole range of issues, including graduate
tuition policies. We should simply defer to the findings of this committee.
2) School of Architecture (SoA) - Ken Warriner distributed a proposal for a minor in Acoustics.
Architecture students can complete the minor because the courses are not required for their
major. Dick. Smith asked if there was any involvement with Henry Scarton’s acoustics course.
Ken is not aware of a connection. David Hess asked whether it was ok to include a graduate
level course as one of the requirements. The SoA will add a statement saying undergraduates
must have approval of the Graduate Education office. The Committee also asked for
clarification of the pre-requisites. Calculus I should be noted as a pre-requisite not proficiency.
Ken will check to see why there are no prerequisites for ARCH 4840. The Committee voted
unanimously to table the proposal.
3) The Committee agreed that major curriculum changes are due in mid-December and course
changes in February. S. Kunkel will check on the catalog deadlines.
4) Outcomes and Performance measures- How do we move forward? A lengthy discussion
followed:
 D. Smith commented on the difference between outcomes and the need to be able to
assess if we are achieving them.
 David Hess asked what is being assessed, courses or programs. L. Odell responded
saying it’s the degree granting program and the students’ performance in the program.
They are the products that reflect the cumulative effect of the program. It’s not an
assessment of courses. Middle States and ABET are interested in the programs.
 D. Hess asked if individual courses will be assessed by an external body.
 Student learning outcomes are an assessment of a product that reflects the entire
program. One course won’t achieve the outcomes of the program.
 There some concern about academic freedom.
 D. Hess noted that the graduate level assessment of programs has been very successful.
It could be a model that work at the undergraduate level and would not impinge on
academic freedom.
1
FSCC
Minutes from 10-11-06

Other questions that were raised during the discussion include: What are the outcomes
for a program? What kinds of performances do you expect from your students?
 K. Craig noted that the outcomes of a program can’t be measured with one culminating
experience.
 The thesis distinguishes graduate level programs but that doesn’t exist at the
undergraduate level.
 D. Hess suggested using an external peer review, placement history, and focus groups
of current students and alumni to measure outcomes. We could also assess our alumni.
 D. Smith noted that if we use those measurements we can only do an assessment based
on what the student demonstrates at graduation.
After some discussion, M. Wozny asked Committee members to distribute the current Outcomes
documents to their curriculum committees and ask for feedback. He also asked D. Smith to provide
the Committee with information on what the School of Engineering is doing.
5) PhD Requirements- Les Gerhardt provided an overview of the current requirements for a PhD
degree and the background on the recommendations for a 72 credit hour program.
The draft report was distributed to department heads for approval. It’s been forwarded to the
Provost. Many schools in Europe as well as some in the US have a body of knowledge approach.
The adviser determines when the student has completed. Based on the benchmarking done, we are
at the high end of credit hours required for a PhD. The recommendation is for a minimum 72 cr hr
PhD program. The adviser and graduate committee would remain the gatekeeper. The only NYS
requirement is a 3 year fulltime residency. The report did not stipulate a dissertation requirement.
That will be a departmental decision. There was some discussion of the financial issues with the
full time tuition policy. M. Wozny asked if the FSCC could review the report. L. Gerhardt will
check with the Provost on the process. The 72 credit hour program would not change the
requirement for the student to be fulltime and pay full tuition.
6) M. Wozny noted that the Faculty Senate has been asked to consider no grades for the first term.
There was no time for discussion.
2