Faculty Senate Curriculum Committee
October 13, 2004
Present:
Tom Apple
Lindsey Bachman
June Deery
Jeff Durgee
Mike Goldenberg
Amir Hirsa
Ted Krueger
Chris Mc Dermott
Lee Odell
Richard N. Smith
David Spooner
Christoph Steinbruchel, Chair
Sam Wait
Mike Wozny
1. The minutes from 9/29/04 were approved with the following amendment: include a
question mark at the end of each statement (page 2) of the minutes from 9/29/04. It was
agreed that these were discussion points without any uniform agreement and discussion
should be continued.
2. FSCC Agenda Items for AY 2004-2005:
The Committee discussed the proposed items for the year in order to determine the priority
of the items.

Catalog - The Committee is not clear on who is entitled to put what into the catalog and
make changes that appear in various places. It is not clear where changes come from
regarding the core requirements.

Bullet 5 -Graduate student course load limit (15) vs. undergrad limit (21) for same tuition
will be removed from list. It was agreed that this is a financial issue not a curricular issue
and is to be removed from the list.

Bullet 7 – funding curricular innovation will be removed from the list due to its financial
implications.

Assessment of 4x4- Discussion was focused on whether we need to stick with the 4x4.
Does it still work? C. Steinbruchel indicated he would like to hear more discussion on
this. It seems there are still mixed emotions over the 4x4. Departments have adopted it
but there has been no widespread discussion. There was a comment that it seems to limit
student choices and that four-hour courses are going on. S. Wait reminded the group that
the 4x4 is dead in Chemistry. Chemistry is back to 3 credit courses with 1 credit labs. It
was suggested that where it works, it should be kept. It was adopted due to limited
classroom slots and resource issues. T. Apple suggested it be left to department chairs.
C. McDermott wondered what may happen to faculty load.
Agenda items in order of importance (at least temporarily) was determined as follows:
1. Communication Requirements - because it is in progress already.
2. Core Outcomes – it is a high priority.
3. Logistics – work on issues that surround 4x4 and get to the business of
addressing it. It should be addressed in advance of the Middle States review.
4. Catalog
The Committee decided to recommend to the Student Senate to take on the issue of “other
teaching/learning issues” for a year and then have this Committee come back to it. This deals with
grade inflation, teaching evaluation and test frequency vs. learning.
Faculty Senate Curriculum Committee
Minutes from 10/13/04
The Committee also decided that independent studies could probably be handled at the department
level. There seems to be too many 694x courses showing up at the graduate level.
The motion to approve the prioritized list of agenda items was unanimously approved.
Discussion then moved to the Faculty Senate motion: “In order to insure that the core curriculum
provides depth, students must take at least two courses within a single area of H&SS and two
courses within a single area of Science other than Mathematics.”
C. Steinbruchel provided some background to the Committee. He stated that we approved the
adoption of a biology course as a science requirement in some programs. On the other hand, in the
catalog, there are conflicting statements on the core requirements. He stated that we need to resolve
the conflicts. A memo from G.P Bud Peterson (dated 9/7/04) was distributed. It talks about the
departments of Management and Architecture and the impact of a Biology requirement on those
majors. Students in those majors currently take only 20 credits of science courses. It was noted that
forcing a two-course depth sequence in those majors would mean the only options open to those
students would be to choose one additional course.
The memo from the Provost was rejected by the Faculty Senate. Per C. Steinbruchel, the Faculty
Senate’s position is that the FSCC couldn’t approve this decision because it needed to go to the FS
for a faculty vote. After further discussion on what course of action may be available, the FSCC
approved, with one abstention, a motion to reaffirm the statement made on 11/12/03 in which
the two-course depth requirement in Science was removed.
A second motion was proposed regarding the H&SS depth requirement and that it needs
further discussion. This motion was also approved unanimously.
2