Faculty Senate Curriculum Committee
Minutes from the March 1, 2006 Meeting
Present:
Jeff Durgee
Prabhat Hajela
Amir Hirsa, chair
David Hess
Julie Leusner
Sharon Kunkel
Mike Hanna
Chris McDermott
Wally Morris
Lee Odell
Mark Steiner
John Schroeder
Sam Wait
Mike Wozny
Ken Warriner
1) The minutes from the meeting on February 22, 2006 were approved unanimously with one
amendment: Chris McDermott should be added to the list of attendees.
2) School of Humanities and Social Science- Lee Odell indicated that the Cognitive Science
department has no issues with cross-listing the proposed MATH 4020 Math Computability and
Logic with Philosophy. He has no further information on ECON 6XXX Advanced Quantitative
Analysis.
3) School of Management & Technology- Jeff Durgee provided an overview of the proposal to modify
the MS-MGMT core curriculum. The proposed courses which are part of the MBA program will
replace the existing core courses in the MS template. The Committee had a number of
questions/issues including the following:
a. Will the MS students take the courses in the block scheduling model with the MBA
students? J. Durgee indicated that was their intention.
b. Core program changes require approval from NYS.
c. Will the old core courses be deleted? Jeff will bring those to the next meeting. The
Committee unanimously approved a motion to replace the existing core with new
ones on the list.
 MGMT 7740 Acct for Reporting and Control will replace MGMT 6190
 MGMT 6020 Financial Management I will replace MGMT 6310
 MGMT 6040 Creating & Managing the Enterprise I will replace MGMT 6710
 MGMT 6050 Creating & Managing the Enterprise II will replace MGMT 6560
There is an increased interest in the area of finance. The School is hiring 2 new finance faculty and
as a result wants to add several new courses in that area. The FSCC suggested that J. Durgee bring
the proposals to the next meeting. They asked him to make sure the forms are revised to reflect the
course level, credit hours, shortened transcript titles and to also make sure each course has an
appropriate Academic Integrity (AI) statement. A. Hirsa asked Committee members to review the
courses prior to the next meeting.
4) School of Architecture (SoA)- Ken Warriner distributed 2 handouts with 3 items for the
Committee’s review.
a. One correction to the Built Ecologies curriculum template; ARCH 6810 should be listed
as Design Research Seminar for 2 credits
b. A new course LGHT 6980 Master’s Project
Faculty Senate Curriculum Committee
Minutes from 3/1/06
c. BS Building Sciences- New students can no longer enroll in the program so the School
would like to drop the information text and template from the catalog and insert a
sentence to that effect. The SoA does not want to advertise it at this point in time in the
catalog although they do not want to formally drop it with New York State. This has
been done before so there is a precedent. There are still some students enrolled in the PDI
program completing a dual major with BLSC and STSO. Those students can complete
the program. A motion to approve all three items noted above (items a, b and c) was
approved with one abstention.
d. A new course for the Architectural Acoustics program, ARCH 6820 Research Methods in
Acoustics, was approved unanimously.
5) Information Technology- Sam Wait presented 2 course changes for information:
a. ITEC 2210- Intro to HCI to reflect a change in x-listing
b. ITEC 2110 Exploiting the Information World- title change
6) School of Science- Sam Wait presented an overview of several new courses:
a. BCBP 4640 Proteomics- The 4000 level course includes a lab.
b. BIOL 4640 Proteomics
c. BCBP 6460 Proteomics –The 6000 level course does not have a lab.
d. BIOL 6460 Proteomics
The new courses were approved unanimously.
e. CHEM 6010- Perspectives in Chemistry- P. Hajela noted that the Provost’s office
discourages outside of the class exams. The instructor needs to make sure the students
know well in advance if exams will be held outside of the scheduled class. The course
was approved unanimously.
f. CHEM 6110- Modern Methods in Chemistry- This course and CHEM 6010 are intended
for new graduate students in their first year. It was approved unanimously.
g. CHEM/BCBP 6170 Advanced Topics in Nuclear Magnetic Resonance-The description
needs to be corrected to reflect the pre-requisites. Both courses need an AI statement.
The courses were approved unanimously with the stipulations noted.
h. CHEM 6670 Polymer Separation & HPLC- The course is 2 credit hours in order to
balance the credit load. The course was approved unanimously.
i. CHEM 6680 Polymer Dynamics- This is an 8-week course. The FSCC thought it was
unusual for a graduate level course to have 30% of grade based on attendance. S.Wait
will check with the department and update the syllabus. The course was approved
unanimously with the stipulation that attendance not be a factor in the grade.
j. CHEM 6800- Chemical Information Sources- The Committee had concerns about this 1
credit hour course. J. Schroeder asked why it was even necessary. Graduate students will
learn to do this on their own and it seems inappropriate for the students to receive credit.
S. Wait indicated that students coming from other schools may not have the appropriate
background. M. Wozny also had reservations. He pointed out that it’s the 3rd course about
how to do research. In his department they want to ramp up their students’ research as
quickly as possible. After further discussion, the motion to approve the course was
passed by a 9 -2 vote.
7) Mid Term Assessment Status- Mike Hanna distributed a policy statement for review and discussion.
The discussion included the following:
-2-
Faculty Senate Curriculum Committee
Minutes from 3/1/06
a. The policy looks reasonable but L. Odell asked if the concept of feedback from students
got dropped. J. Leusner indicated that the subcommittee did not explore that idea.
b. A. Hirsa said the Faculty Senate has voted against feedback on advising but ABET
requires feedback from students.
c. The statement should explicitly say students must receive some form of assessment by
mid-semester.
d. The idea was to set standards and this statement does not convey that. This statement
should be stronger.
e. Some form of assessment, i.e. graded assignments must be handed back by mid-term
f. The statement needs to have some teeth
g. Students need to know where they stand with respect to the others in the class
h. By mid semester, students should receive some form of assessment that indicates their
standing in the class.
The Committee suggested some minor changes and agreed on the following revision to the policy
statement:
Policy:
Utilize the “Handbook for Academic Staff” as the mechanism to present the mid-term assessment
policy. Section III-C-1 is entitled “The Course Syllabus.” This section of the Handbook provides the
basis for the memo sent by the Provost that all faculty members receive prior to each semester. The
section describes what should be in the syllabus and is considered mandatory because it is in the
Handbook. There are currently 9 items identified that must be addressed in the syllabus. Items included
are grading criteria, academic integrity statements, and other less vital but important information. A
tenth category entitled academic assessment could be included. A statement such as the following “Each
syllabus should identify the mechanism that is used to provide students with assessment of their progress
during the semester; by mid semester, students should receive some form of assessment that indicates
their standing in the class.”
The motion to approve the policy statement was approved unanimously. M. Hanna will take the
revised statement to the Faculty Senate meeting for review and discussion.
-3-