Faculty Senate Curriculum Committee
Minutes from the January 19, 2005 Meeting
Present:
Lindsay Bachman
June Deery
Mike Goldenberg
Prabhat Hajela
Amir Hirsa
Ted Krueger
Sharon Kunkel
Lee Odell
Dave Spooner
Dick Smith
Christoph Steinbruchel, chair
Sam Wait
1) The minutes from December 8, 2004 were approved with one correction: Item 3,
the course should be BIOL 4XXX Environmental Biology.
2) C. Steinbruchel told the Committee that the proposal for a new Communication
requirement is going forward. L. Odell and M. Goldenberg are developing a
presentation for the Student Senate.
3) School of Architecture (SoA) - T. Krueger presented 2 course changes for information
to the Committee.
 ARCH 6120 Design Explorations 2 - description and term change
 ARCH 6130 Design Explorations 3 – description change
4) School of Engineering (SoE)- Dick Smith presented course changes as information:
 ENVE 4150 Environmental Engr Lab I
title, description and cr hrs
 ENVE 4180 Environmental Process Design II title, description & cr hrs
 ECSE 4520 Communication Systems
description and term
Also 3 course deletions:
 ENVE 4160 Environmental Engr Lab II
 ENVE 4170 Environmental Process Design I
 ECSE 4020 Electrical Engineering Lab
P. Hajela asked about the ENVE program and the deletions. D. Smith indicated
that the department lacks a critical mass but they have new faculty on board. The
changes and deletions represent the consolidation of courses within the
department.
 A request to cross list ENGR 4100/6100 Business Issues for Engineers and
Scientists with ITEC 4100/6100 (it’s a required course for MS IT majors) was
approved unanimously.
5) School of Science (SoS)- S. Wait presented a new course CHEM 4160/6160 Nuclear
Magnetic Resonance Spectroscopy. The courses were approved unanimously.
6) D. Smith updated the Committee on the status on the discussion of the Life Science
requirement in the SoE. It’s not clear if it will be a part of all programs or just some of
them. The SoE is trying to use the term “Life Science” requirement not Biology
requirement. They are attempting to balance the credits over the 4 years. They can’t
accommodate this requirement by substituting it for a technical elective. The templates
from some of the programs are using one of the free elective slots. This kind of change
Faculty Senate Curriculum Committee
Minutes from January 19, 2005
would require a vote from the faculty. But he asked whether the FSCC would approve
it? M. Goldenberg asked why the Life Science requirement is more important than free
electives. He feels strongly that the12 credit hours of free electives should remain
untouched. Biology is a fundamental area for scientists and engineers in this world. At
the same time, the 12 credit hours of electives are meant to provide students with
breadth in the core requirements. The SoE will probably allow Biology AP credit to
count as the Life Science requirement. C. Steinbruchel indicated that outside
engineering advisory boards have suggested other courses or areas are important and
should be added to the engineering requirements. T. Krueger suggested that although
flexibility is important, Biology is also important to breadth. It could be considered a
“designated” breadth. L. Bachman said free electives provide an opportunity for
students to switch majors easily with no penalty. D. Spooner agreed noting that he
sees lots of students changing majors. Students pursuing dual majors would lose the
ability to complete a dual major in engineering. Others noted that flexibility and
breadth are important issues. Our alumni tell us our programs are already strict with
too little flexibility. J. Deery asked if the SoE would consider incorporating a life
science course in the curriculum with an advising emphasis rather than making it a
requirement. S. Wait asked if there were any options with 3 credit hour courses. In the
SoE most electives have remained at 3 credit hours at 4000 level. The FSCC did not
vote but are generally not in favor of reducing the number of credits for free electives.
7) Core Outcomes- C. Steinbruchel briefly outlined the current status of the Core
Outcomes. They were not approved last year, but we need them. So far suggestions
have ranged from resubmitting the identical proposal to starting all over. What were
the deal breakers? Entrepreneurship, specific reference to Calculus, and the
assessment component were all points that some felt should not be included. Some
felt the outcomes were too specific. Whatever the next version is, it must address
these issues. The faculty may be concerned about the implementation and the
resources required for implementation. P. Hajela asked why not leave it up to the
individual schools? The hallmark of all Rensselaer graduates is the core program.
Core requirements make up over 50% of each degree program. As the discussion
continued, additional issues were raised including the following:








The ballot was different than what the FSCC approved
The Faculty Senate took this document and numbered the report and formatted
them in a way that was different than the intention
Need to have the assessments and say somewhere how we do the assessments
If you have outcomes you must have performance measures
Should we put the outcomes in a voteable format?
Look at our programs now, what are we doing now? Are doing what we ought to
be doing?
What should we do in the future, what we should we do better?
Need a commonality
The Faculty Senate would like the FSCC to come back with a document with fewer points
than the original one. C. Steinbruchel suggested looking at the original document again with
an eye to deciding what must stay and what could be folded into other points. All of the
documents are available on the Faculty Senate website.
2
Faculty Senate Curriculum Committee
Minutes from January 19, 2005
3