Faculty Senate Curriculum Committee
Minutes from the October 26, 2005 Meeting
Present:
Jeff Durgee
Nancy Campbell
Mike Goldenberg
Prabhat Hajela
Amir Hirsa, chair
Michael Hanna
Carlos Lopez
Sharon Kunkel
Julie Leusner
Chris McDermott
Lee Odell
Dave Spooner
John Schroeder
Ken Warriner
Sam Wait
Mike Wozny
Guests:
Mary Anne Staniszewski
Mark Steiner
Mark Mistur
1) The minutes from the October 12, 2005 meeting were approved with the following
amendments 1) pg 1 item 3, should read “It was also noted that an organizational structure
needs to be put in place so one person on campus isn’t the sole “expert” in this area. 2) pg
1, item 3 should read “L. Odell noted that the goal for the first year of implementation of
the plan is to..” 3) Pg 2, item 4, should read “In Calc I and II”
2) School of Humanities and Social Science: Mary Anne Staniszewski presented an overview of
the proposed PhD in Electronic Arts. She provided a historical perspective of the discipline
and the many changes that have evolved in the past few years. IEAR is one of the first
integrated arts programs in the country. Now many schools are trying to do the same thing.
The Master of Fine Arts (MFA) degree in Visual Arts has long been the terminal degree. The
proposed degree is a studio arts degree. Students enrolled in the program will be artists who
may already have a master’s degree and maybe a MFA as well. J. Durgee noted that this
degree is important as it will validate the role of EMPAC on campus. N. Campbell asked if
the students will get enough interdisciplinary coursework. The program includes a
colloquium every semester in addition to a research methods course. The department plans to
have the proposal to NYS by the end of the spring term. The students will be supported the
first 2 years of the program and will need funding for their third year. Research grants in the
art world are generally smaller than in other disciplines so this will be a challenge for the
department. There is demand for the program and the department anticipates a steady state of
12 students. M. Staniszewski believes they’ve put together a good program and she’s
completed a risk assessment to determine what stands in the way of making it successful. She
will be back to answer questions at a future meeting.
3) School of Architecture (SoA): Mark Mistur provided a very detailed overview of the new
proposed concentration, Built Ecologies, for the degrees in the School of Architecture; PhD
and MS in Architectural Sciences and the M Arch II. It is an interdisciplinary concentration
that builds on degree programs that are already approved. The concentration will use many
existing courses and will add 2 new courses. The School plans to develop partnerships with
other academic and corporate organizations. They also have plans to develop research in this
area. Research is still relatively new to the SoA so they welcome collaboration with other
schools and departments. A. Hirsa suggested “Performance by Design” energy is a hot topic
Faculty Senate Curriculum Committee
Minutes from the October 26, 2005 Meeting
for research opportunities. S. Wait pointed out that many of the courses listed for the
concentration have pre-requisites and asked how the School planned to handle that. The
students will need to take the prerequisites or the faculty will determine if the students have
the background required. M. Mistur asked what the next steps were because they are anxious
to begin recruiting M. Hanna indicated that he’s having difficulty imagining the population
who will be prepared to take this concentration.
M. Wozny said he would like to see more support from other departments. S. Wait suggested
providing sample programs which show how students with different backgrounds would be
able to complete the concentration. The FSCC in general supports the program, but would
like to see SoA follow up on the Committee’s suggestions.
4) Mid-term Progress Reporting- Julia Leusner discussed the proposal from the Student Senate
for mid-term grading. There are really 2 components to the proposal, mid-term grades and
mid-term course evaluations. A general discussion followed Julia’s presentation. Both L.
Odell and M. Hanna thought it was a good idea but thought there were a number of logistical
issues that would need to be solved. A numerical mean would be more helpful than a letter
grade. M. Wozny surveyed his faculty on this topic and most were uniformly negative. They
felt that they were already doing something like this and did not want an additional
“institutionalized” process.
N. Campbell noted that progress reporting is very different than “mid-term” grades. The SoA
sends out letters connected to the drop date to the students in their classes who need help. P.
Hajela uses web ct functionality which shows students where they stand in relation to the other
students in the class. One suggestion was to look at the drop date deadline to see if it should be
changed. M. Wozny indicated that most faculty try to provide meaningful feedback to the
students.
5) Lee Odell will send a survey to the Committee asking for their input on the kinds of support
they’d like to see provided by the Writing Center.
-2-