Faculty Senate Curriculum Committee
Minutes from the October 27, 2004 Meeting
Tom Apple
Lindsey Bachman
Amir Hirsa
Ted Krueger
Sharon Kunkel
Lee Odell
Chris McDermott
Dick Smith
David Spooner
Christoph Steinbruchel, chair
Sam Wait
Mike Wozny
1) The minutes from October 13, 2004 were approved unanimously. A. Hirsa noted
that it was important to include any abstentions in the minutes.
2) School of Engineering (SoE)-D. Smith distributed a handout with 4 options the SoE is
considering in order to incorporate a Life Science requirement into the School’s degree
requirements. The consensus in the School is that it’s the right thing to do. The
requirement may not be BIOL 1010. The individual departments are considering other
options as well. D. Smith distributed a handout, “An Informal Query to the FSCC”, and then
reviewed the options on the handout.
 Option 1- raise total credits to 132 - issue: this could mean a 20 or 21 credit semester
 Option 2- reduce the number of free elective credits- issues: could reduce the number of
dual majors; dual majors are used as a recruiting tool. C. McDermott asked whether they
should look at non 4x4 options to make this option work. D. Smith questioned whether
there was enough energy in the SoE for gutting the curriculum to change the 4x4
structure with all of the other initiatives in the School. A. Hirsa added that it’s not 4x4, it’s
that a major curricular reform at this time when so many items are on the table.
 Option 3 -combination of 1 and 2
 Option 4- reduce the H&SS requirements
D. Smith asked for feedback from FSCC to help guide the SoE. Several issues were raised as
part of the discussion including the following:
 Would AP help with # 2 option?
 It’s important to deal with it strategically
 SoE knows it’s students best
 Most students take 20 credits at one point?
 In the SoE long term discussions, most agree that a master’s degree is needed
 The tendency is to try to do too much in the program and then there is a struggle
to get it all in
A straw vote poll was discussed but the Committee then voted on the following
motion with 5 in favor, 1 abstention and no one opposed “we, the FSCC, strongly
advise against anything that reduces the students’ breadth of education.”
3) School of Architecture—T. Krueger presented a change in the template for the PDI
Curriculum in BS BLSC/STS. There was a brief discussion of the impact of this change. The
Committee suggested several minor corrections to the template 1) Fall term sophomore
year replace Science Sequence with Science Elective 2) update the related footnote and 3)
list suggested courses. A motion to adopt the change with the minor corrections
was approved unanimously.
Faculty Senate Curriculum Committee
Minutes from October 27, 2004
4) School of Humanities and Social Science- L. Odell distributed the proposed Life Science
requirement for the majors within the School of Science. The Committee had some questions
for him. He indicated that a 3 credit course would meet the requirement although a 2 credit
would not. The School does not want to allow AP credit for Biology to be used to fulfill the
requirement. Students can use the AP credit (it’s posted as a Biology elective) as a free
elective. After some discussion of the pros and cons of AP credits, the FSCC voted to
approve (all in favor with one abstention) the requirement as it was written.
“The H&SS Curriculum Committee has approved the following Life Science
Requirement:
The Curriculum Committee approves the requirement for one Biology course for
Humanities and Social Sciences students. The requirement will be satisfied by
successfully completing: BIOL 1010 (Introduction to Biology) or another Biology
course at Rensselaer or a comparable course taken elsewhere that is accepted as
transfer credits.”
5) Core Outcomes- C. Steinbruchel led the discussion on how to move forward with the Core
Outcomes. He believes that part of the concern with the original document is the perception
that the departments were being told what had to be included in their program. However,
the outcomes were always meant to be goals. It is up to the individual departments to
figure out how to meet those goals.
In the discussion that followed several issues were raised. M. Wozny asked if the outcome
says you must have a life science requirement, isn’t that in essence telling the departments
what they need to do? D. Smith noted that outcomes should include performance criteria
and implementation plans. ABET may have some guidelines that will help us write these. T.
Apple reminded everyone that the 2 + year process to develop the outcomes included input
from everyone (including alumni, faculty, students, and deans) then the general outcomes
were developed and finally each department was asked to develop the performance criteria.
What was sent to the Faculty Senate was overarching. Performance criteria must be specific
and it should include details on how it will be measured. The FSCC can’t develop the
assessment rules; each School needs to come up with measures that best meet the needs of
their students. Even within the Schools, an assessment measure must be developed for each
degree program. T. Apple would like to resubmit the Core Outcomes document to the
Faculty Senate with very minor reworking. C. Steinbruchel suggested continuing with this
discussion at the next meeting.
2