Baruch College Faculty Senate Plenary Meeting
Minutes of April 2, 2015
MINUTES
Senators Attending: E. Axelrod (Law), C. Bellamy (Soc/Anth), M. Carew (Eco/Fin), A. Croker
(S/CIS), B. Ferns (S/CIS), K. Frank (ENG), R. Freedman (ZSB), M. Goodman (COMM), A. Grein
(Mkt/Int’lBus), K. Guest (Soc/Anth), C. Hessel (Eco/Fin), D. Howard (Math), R. Jain (S/CIS), D.
S. Johnson (PSY), G. Jurkevich (ModLang), S. Korenman (SPA), C. Kulatilleke (NatSci), A.
Levitus (CNSLNG/PSY), T. Main (SPA), T. Martell (Eco/Fin), B. Murphy (HIS), J. O'Keefe
Bazzoni (COMM), M. Ozbilgin (ACC), A. Pearlman (PSY), L. Rath (LIB), M. Seltzer (SPA0, P.
Sethi (MGT), ) M. Stark (SPA),A. Vora (Eco/Fin), S. Wine (S/CIS), Yin (MGT).
Senators Absent C. Christoforatou (ENG), S. Dishart (COMM), W. Finke (ModLang), C. Gengler
(Mkt/Int’lBus ), D. Jones (PoliSc), W. McClellan (ENG), R. Ormsby (LIB), G. Petersen
(Soc/Anth), J. Weiser (Law), S. Wong (MTH), J. Ye (ACC) , R. Yue (S/CIS) .
An additional thirty one officers and staff were present.
The meeting was convened at 12:45 p.m. in VC 14-250 by Professor Chris. Hessel, Chair of the
Baruch Faculty Senate.
I.
II.
Approval of Agenda: The agenda was approved by assent.
Approval of the Minutes: Minutes of Plenary Meeting of March 5, 2015 were approved
by assent.
III.
Report from the Chair: Chairman Hessel Welcomed those attending and reviewed the
Agenda for the meeting. He reported the new mandate to the faculty to develop a plan for
the adoption of a resolution for the recognition of “experiential activities.” The details of
this requirement will be posted for faculty consideration. Provost Christy commented that
it is his belief that Baruch is already in compliance. In addition, the 2008 Baruch By-Laws
set forth the policy of constraint of assignment of faculty generated course requirements,
and the reassertion of that policy as any proceeds from such should be contributed to
charity (see attached). A reminder that faculty should attend the Baruch general faculty
meeting on April 16th. Finally that the general faculty will be asked to approve the proposed
the changes to the Faculty Senate By-Laws. A question was addressed of the P.S.C. dues
for additional teaching was explained by Professor William Ferns.
IV.
Report of the Provost: Provost Christie reported on:
A. Reminder about the COACHE Survey of Faculty Job Satisfaction, which closes on
April 10. Our current response rate is 51%. Thank you.
B. The committee that is developing the Baruch College Periodic Review Report to
Middle States Commission on Higher Education will release its report for comment in
mid-April. Comments from Baruch faculty and staff are welcome.
C. We are completing the development of this year’s ‘progress report’ on our Faculty
Diversity Strategic Plan.
D. The search committee for the new dean for WSAS will be formed soon and begin to
meet in May. Our goal is to release the position announcement in mid-August, and
1
complete on-campus interviews of finalists in December. This is important because our
academic calendar does not engage many of our faculty during January.
Professor Peterson raised question as to the Provost’s policy regarding the
achievement of the goal of twenty percent “hybrid” and “on-line”courses as set
forth in the Strategic Plan across the board in all Departments. Provost Christy
responded with his understanding of the “blueprint” in achieving the goal. Further,
he asserted his belief that adherence to the strategy would provide the best
opportunity to accomplish the goal. Professor Peterson implored the assembled
faculty to be attentive to this discourse.
V.
VI.
Report of the President; President Wallerstein was not in attendance.
New Business:
A. The following Baruch representatives to the University Faculty Senate for the
following year were nominated and elected: Professors Matt Edwards, Lisa Ellis and
Cliff Wymbs with Professors Ted Henken and Nanda Kumar as alternatives.
B. Assistant Provost Dennis Slavin introduced the background and purpose of the
subsequent presentation on Student Evaluation.
On Student Evaluation: Arthur Downing presented on how instructors can use
the reporting features in SmartEvals, Baruch’s online course evaluation system.
Users can log into the system from the SmartEvals link under the “Login” tab
on the College’s home page or by going to www.smartevals.com, clicking
“login”, and selecting Baruch College. Faculty can provide students with these
same login methods during an evaluation period. The default screen for
instructors in SmartEvals is the EvalCenter. It contains a record of evaluations
already completed, those in progress, and those that are scheduled. During an
evaluation period instructors can see the response rates to date for their
courses. The Preview link displays the evaluation instrument. SmartEvals
allows for multiple instruments, although Baruch uses only one at this time.
Under the See column the date for scheduled evaluations is only a placeholder
for the release of results; it is not the actual release date. Clicking on the
Reports link in that column retrieves the Custom Report, which lists for each
question, the instructor’s mean and the distribution of responses in that class
across the range of rating choices. By using the drop-down menus at the top of
the screen the instructor can combine surveys across her/his courses and
sections, which will recalculate these numbers. Any value that is highlighted in
blue can be used to restrict the presentation of results to that sub-group of
responses. There are 3 types of values that can be used to filter results in this
way: (1) Responses to evaluation questions; (2) Data provided by Baruch – At
this time we are loading student GPA and transfer status; (3) Data provided by
SmartEvals – At the recommendation of faculty we are using student rating
tendency. SmartEvals categorizes an individual student’s rating behavior along
a range from very easy to very hard grader based on all evaluation ratings
submitted by that student to date. SmartEvals provides several types of charts
to display data in its reports. In the Custom Report there is a visual distribution
2
of scores for each question along with a bar chart that the compares an
instructor’s means alongside the means for the department, school, and college.
The Percentile Rank report shows where an instructor’s mean for each question
falls in the top 30%, bottom 30% or middle range of the selected comparison
group (i.e., department, school, or college by course level, semester or year).
The Individual Evaluations report represents each evaluation submitted
including the comments associated with it, while preserving the student’s
anonymity. By clicking on the Excel icon in any report, the instructor can
export it to PDF format to save or print.
Professor Frank commented upon the security provisions of the system.
Professor Peterson commented that the overall evaluation process tended to
grade instructors on average between 4.2 and 4.7 on a five point scale.
Assistant Provost Dennis Slavin and Professor William Ferns responded to
these and several additional comments on the process of Instructor Evaluation
by students.
C. Announcements: None
Meeting Adjourned at 2:22 pm
Respectfully Submitted
Michael G. Carew, Baruch Faculty Senate Secretary
3
Faculty Senate Plenary Meeting
Minutes of April 3, 2008
Baruch College Textbook Adoption Guidelines and Procedures
Generally textbooks are selected by the individual faculty member, though in some cases a
departmental committee or a committee composed of faculty teaching a course may select
texts. While the adoption of course textbooks is a function of the individual faculty member
and his or her department, certain College standards, CUNY policy guidelines and New
York State Ethics requirements must be met.
I. Textbook Selection and Pricing
Faculty are responsible for ordering their own texts and providing textbook information to
the Baruch College Bookstore in a timely fashion. In the event that a faculty member has
not yet been assigned to a class, the respective department chair is responsible for
providing the bookstore with the textbook information:
Faculty Responsibilities
1. Faculty may not engage in direct sale of instructional materials to students.
2. Faculty should be mindful of the cost of textbooks and strive to minimize the costs of
textbooks for students while maintaining the quality of education and academic
freedom. (See item 9 for the Bookstore’s responsibility to publicize comparative
pricing information.)
3. Faculty are encouraged to provide access to required textbooks and other educational
materials, if applicable, through library reserves, EReserve or similar arrangements.
Faculty are also encouraged to consider electronic books, book chapters, electronic
journal articles, and other digital materials provided through the library or on
Blackboard sites for supplemental and core reading in support of classroom work.
4. Faculty members are encouraged to limit their use of new edition textbooks when
previous editions do not significantly differ in content and the Baruch College
Bookstore can ensure that an adequate supply of the older edition books are available.
5. When appropriate consideration should be given to adopting a common textbook for
courses with multiple sections. The use of common course materials may have
beneficial effects from both a pedagogical and market perspective.
6. An academic course-pack is a collection of materials (usually photocopied) used in
the classroom, distributed either in book format or as class handouts. Most publishers
grant "clearances" for course-packs—that is, for a fee, publishers give permission for
their books or articles to be copied and distributed in educational contexts. Such
clearances normally last for one semester or for one school term. After that, the
instructor must seek clearance again. While the College encourages the use of coursepacks, by placing an adoption for a bundled package, the faculty member
affirmatively confirms his/her intent to use each item in the bundled package. If the
faculty member does not intend to use all items in the bundle he/she shall notify the
bookstore of the items required, and the bookstore shall order the individualized items
when the store’s procurement is cost effective for both the students and the institution
and such items are available from the publisher.
4
7.
The faculty member will indicate whether textbooks are “required” or
“recommended.” A textbook should be designated as “required” if, and only if, the
faculty member intends to use a substantial portion of the book during the course.
Faculty Relations with the Bookstore
8. The Bookstore Manager will notify the faculty member promptly of any information
received regarding the delay in shipment of a textbook or of the inability of a
publisher to provide the textbook by a required date. The Bookstore Manager will
obtain delayed books or substitute books by the most expedient means. When
requested, he will attempt to obtain out-of-print books from alternate sources.
9.
Increasing the availability of used textbooks, at discounts of 25% or more,
significantly reduces the cost of textbooks. National demand for used textbooks far
exceeds supply so early acquisition is essential. Having the textbook adoption
information early also enables the bookstore to pay students the most for their used
books and to acquire more used books. To ensure textbook adoptions are made with
sufficient lead time to confirm availability and, where possible, to ensure maximum
availability of used textbooks, the faculty, departments or schools shall submit
textbook and course material adoption information to the Baruch College Bookstore
as early as possible, preferably by the bookstore’s published dates:
a. Fall semester adoptions by May 1
b. Winter intersession adoptions by October 1
c. Spring semester adoptions by Nov 1
d. Summer session adoptions by April 1
e. As soon as practical upon the late appointment of the course instructor
10. The Bookstore will provide to faculty and department chairs a list of the costs of their
books in the prior term, per course, as well as benchmark averages for the College
and colleagues nationally.
11. Though faculty members are responsible for reporting their best realistic estimate of
the number of students expected in each course and section, the Bookstore, in
fulfilling its contract, must make its own determination on the quantity of each text to
stock. Factors used in making this decision include: each faculty member’s estimated
quantity needed, sales history (if available), enrollment history (if available), student
purchasing patterns, such as use of other book suppliers, and publisher information
(e.g., restrictions on returns, minimum quantities required, discounts on volume
purchases, response time to orders, etc.). If the Bookstore plans to order less books
than indicated by projected course enrollment, they should notify the faculty of the
potential shortfall in the supply of course materials available through the Bookstore.
12. The school curriculum committees are encouraged to review and establish reading
load guidelines for undergraduate and graduate electives to ensure that course reading
assignments are reasonable. In addition these committees should develop
recommended guidelines for multi-section courses that would address the student cost
of instructional materials.
II. Pedagogical and Financial Considerations
13. No employee at Baruch College shall demand or receive any payment, loan,
subscription, advance, or deposit of money, services or anything, present or promised,
5
as an inducement for requiring students to purchase a specific textbook required for
coursework or instruction. An exception to this rule provide for faculty receiving
sample copies, instructor’s copies, or instructional material from publishers for
consider as potential textbooks or course material. However, such material may not to
be sold.
14. Publishers are not precluded from a business relationship with units of the College
(above the individual employee level) provided that relationship meets the standards
specified in Baruch College's Policy on Business Agreements with External Entities.
This policy states that
“Any relationship between the College and an external organization that
involves an exchange of money, goods, use of premises, and/or services requires
a written agreement properly executed by both sides.”
15. There are no restrictions on the adoption of textbooks written by faculty members. In
fact, Baruch College, as does CUNY, encourages faculty members to write and
publish. However, to avoid the appearance of a conflict of interest by adopting a
textbook they have written the textbook adoption process should be open and
transparent. Faculty should request formal approval to use a textbook they authored
from a departmental committee, such as the curriculum committee, charged with
making an independent and objective reviews of textbooks selected. The author(s) of
the textbook should not be part of the selection process. The existence of such a
committee is necessary to prevent any conflicts of interest, perceived or real, from
occurring. The selection process should be well documented with written critiques of
all candidate textbooks.
16. Royalty payments a faculty member earns on textbooks used in a course taught by the
faculty member are subject to the rules and policies of the City University of New
York. Faculty are encouraged to consider donating royalties earned on books they use
in courses to charitable causes as a way of separating pedagogical consider that
benefit the students from financial consideration that benefit the individual faculty
member.
Drafted by the Education Policy Subcommittee of the Faculty Senate, March 27, 2008
Approved by the Faculty Senate, April 3, 2008
6
Draft CUNY Policy on Faculty Assigning for purchase their own works in classrooms
From Philip Pecorino and Karen Kaplowitz
The Faculty of CUNY affirm Academic Freedom in the responsibility and rights of faculty to
choose materials to assign to their students and to require for purchase by the students in
their courses. As professional educators, faculty should avoid the appearance and the
reality of any conflict of interest in making such determinations. When faculty create
materials and derive revenue from their sale and, either as individuals or as members of a
group, make the determination to use materials that they have created in their own
classes, then that portion of the revenue they derive from the sale of books to their own
students should be directed to a program for the use or support of students over which
the authors have no control or influence. Such programs may include but are not to be
limited to student scholarships and emergency funds at the college at which they teach.
Whenever materials that are created by a faculty member are to be used in multiple
sections of a course only some of which are taught by that faculty member, then the
decision concerning which work is to be used must be made by an official group of faculty
of the department and not by any single faculty member, not even the department
chairperson. Even in these cases, the portion of the revenue they derive from the sale of
their own materials to their own students should be directed to a program for the use or
support of students over which the creator has no control or influence.
7
Th e F a c u l t y S e n
ate
The City College of New
York
Resolution against profit-making
in the distribution of course materials
Whereas, the mission of City College is to serve economically disadvantaged students;
such students have great difficulty purchasing course materials such as textbooks, and
Whereas, the Faculty and the College Administration have an obligation to provide
syllabi and course information sheets at no cost to students,
Resolved, that faculty and departments in the College may not make a profit from
course materials sold to students, either directly or through the bookstore. Any
monies collected from students should be for necessary class expenses and should be
so used, and,
Be it further resolved that the College should not enter into agreements with
publishers or vendors that provide profits to individual departments for course materials.
Furthermore, any existing contracts that provide profits to departments for materials
should be cancelled at the earliest possible time.
This resolution was adopted at the Plenary Meeting of the CCNY Faculty Senate
on April 24, 2014 by a vote of 33:2:2 (quorum = 32 senators, requires 32
8
votes for adoption.)
9
This is the language on experiential learning. It was part of the budget bill which is now
law. It requires CUNY to pass a Board Resolution by June 1, 2015. The actual plan does
not have to be developed until June 1, 2016. Given what is involved, one year is not a lot of
time. I would think individual colleges would be starting to sort out the issues soon. There
are many issues which will have to be addressed at the individual campus level. I suggest
you monitor this process closely.
PART Q
Section 1. Subdivision 2 of section 355 of the education law is amended by adding a
new paragraph f-1 to read as follows:
Notwithstanding any law, rule or regulation to the contrary, the city university of New
York board of trustees shall pass a resolution by June first, two thousand fifteen, to
develop a plan to make available to students enrolled in an academic program of the city
university of New York beginning in the two thousand sixteen--two thousand
seventeen academic year, approved experiential or applied learning activities.
Such experiential or applied learning activities may include completion of activities
related to students' program of study, including, but not limited to, service-learning
activities completed as part of a course, or unpaid internships, facultysupervised undergraduate projects and activities leading to publication of research
in journals or similar publications, production or performance of creative works, and
iterative "co-op" partnerships that explicitly link the curricula to a temporary paid position
in industry or the public sector.
Such plan, to be completed by June first, two thousand sixteen, shall be developed in
consultation with university faculty senate, the university student senate and other
stakeholders. Such plan shall define:
approved experiential or applied learning activities, methods of faculty oversight
and assessment and collecting and reporting data associated with such
experiential or applied learning activities.
Such plan shall have each college examine the feasibility of including such experiential or
applied learning activities as a degree requirement.
Such college shall examine its ability to administer and provide such opportunities to
students; the local community's capacity to support such experiential or applied learning
activities; the impact such requirement would have on the local
workforce, if any; potential for such a requirement to enhance learning outcomes for
students; and whether adding such a requirement would cause potential delays in
graduation for students.
This act shall take effect immediately and shall be deemed to have been in full force and
effect on and after April 1, 2015.
10
Enrollment Management Committee Meeting 2-24-15
Attendees: Edward Adams (Senior Registrar), Cherry Aung (Undergraduate
Student Representative), David Birdsell (Dean/SPA), David Christy (Provost), Ben
Corpus (Vice-president/Enrollment Management +), Kevin Frank (Professor/
English), Bob Freedman (Dean’s Office/ZSB), Michael Goodman (Professor &
Director/Corporate Communications), Gary Hentzi (Associate Dean/WSAS),
Fenwick Huss (Dean/ZSB), Molly Kern (Professor, Management), Michael
Seltzer (Distinguished Lecturer, SPA), Mona Zamfirescu
(Professor/Mathematics)
Summary:
Re. Enrollment Numbers and the Budget
How do we best address the ongoing problem of scrambling regarding
enrollment targets in order to deal with potential budget shortfalls?
Decline in graduate enrollment and effect on the budget has to be balanced on
the undergraduate side. Graduate vs. undergraduate enrollment has different
implications in that the number of graduate students has a much greater impact
upon our discretionary budget. Headcount in terms of full-time equivalent vs.
part-time also has different implications per different tuition.
We’re working hard with our graduate directors to try to restore graduate
enrollments, but it is seen as a long-term project and process in the sense of
getting back to “normal”. For the next couple years, overall, we are projected to
be down in graduate student numbers, despite the numbers being steady in
certain fields.
Best news: Ben Corpus and his staff have been able to take away the depth of the
punch from the lack of graduate student enrollment by bringing in some more
undergraduates and giving us that revenue, so that we don’t end up letting
faculty and sections go.
At Baruch there are two differential (read higher) tuition programs: the MBA and
the MPA, and there are different levels of Academic Excellence Fees attached to
other programs.
Targets from CUNY central precipitate problems. How do we in the long-term,
end up in a place where we have greater control?
Should Baruch be included in CUNY advertisements, where we’re currently
absent?
The ads come out of and are designed by Vice-chancellor Hershenson’s office
to a large extent. Their emphasis has been on STEM, especially on the
11
undergraduate level, per the previous chancellor’s (Goldstein’s) emphasis. That
may change under the new chancellor, and if so there may be opportunities to
Baruch. Central has been collecting around issue areas pertinent to graduate
program advertising, and we (Baruch) were sounded in areas such as Human
Services and Government Services for ads. However, there is a risk in
advertising with and through Central, as in their eyes, all CUNY children, so to
speak, are equal and equally deserving. Thus, we end up advertised alongside,
without differentiation, programs we might deem less distinguished. That hasn’t
hurt us, but their job is to advertise all CUNY and not Baruch specifically. They
also focus on the colleges and programs that they think need the biggest lift.
If that is the case, what are the ways in which we can advertise our distinguished
selves in a way that reaches the visibility of CUNY subway ads?
Within Baruch, do we already have a large segment of people we can reach out to
in terms of advertising our graduate programs: undergraduate students? Is
focusing on getting more of our own undergraduates to pursue graduate degrees
at Baruch a strategy with potential? It may save on some administrative costs.
For future discussion in our committee, and beyond/a strategic issue with lots of
implications: what percentage of our enrollment do we envision as a target for the
graduate level? 20%? 25%? We’re already at 18%. So should we aim for
something more dramatic? 2/3 undergraduate and 1/3 graduate? That 1/3 would
come in with higher tariffs and Academic Excellence Fees, which would give the
college more money. Would that money be redeployed around Baruch, or what are
the implications regarding money that goes back to Central?
Increasing graduate enrollment may also alleviate some of the capacity issues
we’re having. However, workload issues would be one impact.
There is an emphasis on increasing graduate enrollment in our strategic plan.
However, even the venerable MBA program has been having enrollment trouble,
as there has been a migration of students from the MBA to the MS program.
Moreover, a lot of the Baruch graduate programs are not designed for recent
graduates (work experience in an organization is a key factor in benefitting from
such programs). Should we therefore reconsider those designs, should we
design new programs for recent graduates (such as around specialized, technical
components/ e.g. Data Intensive Market Research)? Or, should we do both?
The trick is to figure out what programs will bring in the students.
Is 4 + 1 an angle in? Accounting has a 4 + 1 program. How effectively is that
working? There is also an ECHO MPA. How is that working? Should we consider
possible expansion in programs in which it could work? One challenge in such
programs mixing graduates with undergraduates in classrooms is keeping the
work at the graduate level. The experience has been that students are not taking
12
advantage of such programs, mainly because it forces them to make decision
about where they’re going, earlier than they are ready to do so. Is part of the
problem that some students in programs such as ECHO are not particularly
strong students? Is critical mass also part of the problem with such programs? Is
yet another problem that some 70% of our students are transfers and are only
here for a short period of time?
Right now we are moving at going to 20% of overall enrollment being graduate
students. We were once at 3,900 graduate students. If we increase where we are
by 5% every semester, 2020 is the earliest we would reach the numbers we had in
2010-2011. Some programs will help us get there more quickly than others, which
would decrease the enrollment burden on the undergraduate number, maintaining
between 17,600-17,800.
We are close to capacity, but we’re not there yet, even at some 18,000 – 18,500.
Of course, one challenge is getting the right balance between undergraduates and
graduates to maximize revenue. Are Academic Excellence Fees a cause of why
graduate enrollments are down? There are programs with such fees that are doing
fine regarding enrollment. Graduate students may be most concerned with the
sweep of placement services/value they get through seminars and so on (as
opposed to said fees). Are fees a deterrent depending on the program? Is there
evidence pertinent to these thoughts?
Re. Transfer vs. First Year Ratio
Fall 2011 – 18,000
Fall 2014 – 18,000
Spring 2015 – Just under 18,000
We are close to capacity, but not actually there yet. Even if we could potentially
handle 18,500, the major concern is what will be the split between undergraduate
and graduate students, and whatever the percentage target, we’ll not get there
immediate, but through a long-term process.
Central is open to conversation about the target numbers in any direction, as
along as it’s a well-conceived business plan which justifies the target in terms of
budget, students’ academic experience, capacity and space.
Is there enough consideration of the extra demands that arise from increasing
the number of transfer students at the last moment? Relatedly, Pathways has
brought in students who don’t need certain courses anymore. They arrive with
more credits than before, which creates a greater capacity need for specific
courses that students do need for their majors. We are working on a better
understanding of the stream of students via Pathways and the needs for certain
majors.
13
What do students need to transfer to Baruch? They need a specific GPA. We do not
get to see transfer applications. It’s hard to do academic planning when we can’t see
the transcripts of the students coming in, with information about what credits they have
and what credits they need. We don't’ get that information until the students are
allocated to Baruch by Central, and that’s why we have historically scrambled to deal
with the issues that arise from last moment increases in transfers. We, and others,
have been trying to get Central to adjust their process to allow us to see the transfer
students’ records earlier, to no avail so far. The conversation is ongoing, but CUNY
First has drawn a lot of Central’s attention away from other critical issues, which are
not as critical to the nineteen other campuses.
For both first year and transfer students, those who apply earlier have higher
academic indicators than those who apply later. A challenge with this is balancing
the indicators and interests in crafting the class we want.
For future/further consideration regarding the ratio:
What are the experiences of students in classes where the student ratio is one of more
transfer than first year (students who have been here longer, participating
in various cohorts related to certain programs we have)? How do these differences
affect the sense of a cohesive college community among students,
and with what consequences?
What are the experiences of faculty in expenditure of time, energy and other resources
in dealing with transfer vs. first year students? Are there inconsistencies in the
preparation of students transferring from CUNY community colleges? What are the
implications for the experiences of all the students in classroom, and their experiences
at Baruch in general, outside of the classroom?
Is there a structural way that we can engage faculty to be more involved in recruitment
and enrollment: “High School Ambassadors”? Yes. We will continue this and related
ideas in the context of the diversity initiatives.
14