Faculty Senate Curriculum Committee
Minutes from the Meeting of November 24, 2004
Present:
Jeff Durgee
Lee Odell
Ted Krueger
Sharon Kunkel
Dick Smith
Christoph Steinbruchel, chair
Dave Spooner
Guests:
Russ Leslie
Dan Frering
1) The minutes from 11/10/04 were approved with the clarification that John Schroeder not John Wen
attended the meeting.
2) The Committee suggested that in the future we need to establish some bylaws i.e. how many members are
needed for a quorum.
3) School of Engineering- D. Smith presented one course change:
 CIVL 6450 Structural Dynamics – prerequisite change
4) School of Architecture (SoA) - At the last FSCC meeting, there were questions about the differences between
Advanced Projects and Theses. R. Leslie from the SoA provided the Committee with some information on the
differences between these two requirements and how they fit into the masters programs in the School.
 Lighting Leadership Seminar- This is a seminar type course with fully integrated with guest lectures, an
extensive reading list and assignments. Leaders from industry are invited to the Seminars. Students
are required to write reports, time is spent on the development of student projects, business plans may
be developed and case studies are completed.
 Advanced Individual Project- The credits are tailored for the student’s individual plan. It’s generally 2 cr
in fall and 2 cr in the spring. The School has the students attend the research design course with
students from the other Architecture programs. The adviser will set up a detailed reading list to help
the students prepare for their qualifying exams. The graduate thesis seminar is for all Architecture
students not just students in the Lighting program. D. Smith suggested that perhaps some of these
courses with credits could be incorporated into the work for the thesis. R. Leslie indicated that they
have seen their enrollment drop with the changes in the Graduate Tuition polices. The one year
degree is generally a self-pay program. A motion to approve the proposal in Lighting, including
the course changes and degree templates (M.S. in Lighting and M.S. in Architectural Sciences
with concentration in Lighting) was approved unanimously.
Summary of approved course changes:
 Deletions:
LGHT 4790 – Lighting Applications
LGHT 4830 – Light
 Changes:
LGHT 4770 – Lighting Technology title, description and term
LGHT 4230 – Lighting Design description and term
LGHT 6770 – Lighting Workshop 2 title, description and term
 New:
LGHT 6830 – Physics of Light
5) School of Humanities and Social Science (SoH&SS) - Lee Odell presented several new course proposals.
 COMM 4XXX Information Design- The FSCC suggested that the syllabus should state clearly what the
individuals are asked to do and what the teams do. This clarification will benefit all of the students.
 COMM 4xxx Graphic Design for Corporate Identity-The Committee raised a question about the
references to plus/minus grading in the syllabus. The Committee thought these references were ok if it
Faculty Senate Curriculum Committee
Minutes from November 24, 2004
is for the internal process used by the instructor. The Academic Integrity (AI) statement should clarify
actions that will result in an “F” grade. The Committee suggested checking the references to the
Rensselaer Handbook to make sure they are stated correctly.
 COMM 4xxx Principles of Web Advertising-J. Durgee noted that this course complements what is
being taught in the School of Management and Technology.
 COMM 4XXX- Religion Culture and Media
 LANG 2XXX- Chinese IV
A motion to approve all new courses as presented was approved unanimously.
L. Odell distributed a handout on the assessment of resources for Communication Intensive Courses which he
reviewed with the Committee. No action was taken but there was a general discussion that included the
following:
 SoH&SS will have to provide for students within their School using their resources. About 900 students can
be covered in the first year studies courses. The School believes that with additional resources they will
need to handle about 300 additional students.
 Ongoing review is important. One course must be writing intensive. It’s important for a student to get
feedback.
 In the SoA, students must do graphics, oral presentations and writing. It is their writing that is weak.
 Must beef up the Writing Center so it can be a resource. It is not the place for grading papers for other
departments.
 Communication intensive courses will not be an “add-on” but will be counted within the core H&SS courses.
 We need a cultural change. We must establish a model that incorporates communication intensive into
existing courses as well as a few new courses.
 We need to think about how it will filter to schools and departments. These will be contextually driven
courses with at least one course within the major. Almost any course could be restructured to be
communication intensive and every program should have these kinds of courses. It must be across the
curriculum because if it’s not discipline specific then the students don’t think it’s a serious requirement.
 The SoE advisory council has suggested that they need more writing and communication. D. Smith
believes the SoE can find places in their courses probably in Culminating experience course.
 C. Steinbruchel asked if a pre-assessment can be done in each program to find out exactly what is
currently being offered.
What’s next? C. Steinbruchel has forewarned the Faculty Senate (FS) that a proposal for a Communication
Intensive requirement will be coming to them for review. He would like to keep this separate from Core
Outcomes. We’ll discuss further at the next meeting. C. Steinbruchel asked everyone to read this information
before the next meeting. J. Durgee thought the tone of the proposal is punitive. L. Odell asked him to identify
where in the proposal he sees that negative voice.
6) Core Outcomes revisited-The FS may ask representatives of the Schools to explain why they can’t add Biology
and still maintain the depth requirement in Science. The issue that is still being debated is what kinds of
changes must come to the entire faculty for a vote. The FSCC reaffirmed their vote in an earlier meeting that a
change to the depth requirement in Science does not require the vote of the faculty.
2